Workspace.Sheets.Write Range

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutation-plus-guard behavior (preview and confirm token), which is genuinely non-obvious context, but omits overwrite semantics for existing cells, required OAuth scopes, and whether the write is atomic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the guard behavior is appended in parentheses where it belongs. Brevity is good, but the parenthetical is doing work that a second sentence could have made actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves key call-correctness information (token acquisition, overwrite behavior, scope requirements) unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at range_a1 ('A1 range') and hints at confirm ('confirm token') without explaining token sourcing or required-value shape; spreadsheet_id and the values array structure are undiscussed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Write values') and resource ('an A1 range of a spreadsheet'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from workspace.sheets.read_range. It stops short of explicitly naming the read sibling or clarifying scope (single range vs. multi-range batch).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Guarded: preview + confirm token' implies a two-step invocation pattern, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over workspace.sheets.create, whether a prior preview call is required, or where the token comes from.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.