sheets_add_conditional_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether this tool overwrites existing conditional formatting, requires specific permissions, or returns any confirmation. The only behavior implied is 'add', and the rule_type list is minimal context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and following with rule type examples. It contains no fluff, though the brevity sacrifices useful detail. Still, it is well-structured for the minimal content it provides.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks critical information about request construction, parameter formatting, and expected behavior, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only offers examples for rule_type (NUMBER_GREATER, TEXT_CONTAINS, CUSTOM_FORMULA, BLANK, etc.) and provides no meaning or usage guidance for values, bg_color, range coordinates, or other required parameters. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Add conditional formatting') and provides examples of rule types, distinguishing it from generic formatting tools. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_format_cells or sheets_set_data_validation. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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