sheets_add_named_range

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

There are no annotations, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'create' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing ranges, coordinate conventions, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the stated purpose, but the extreme brevity leaves out essential details, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.

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 tool with 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too incomplete. It does not specify coordinate systems, how sheet_id relates to spreadsheet_id, or any output behavior. Even with an output schema present, the input semantics are severely underdocumented.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 7 parameters, but it does not. Parameter names like start_row and end_col are self-explanatory to humans, but the lack of any added detail (e.g., 1-based indexing, boundary inclusivity, or spreadsheets API conventions) leaves agents guessing. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a named range in a spreadsheet'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like sheets_add_protected_range or sheets_add_sheet, as it uniquely targets named ranges.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of others, no prerequisites, and no context about spreadsheet or sheet requirements. It simply states the action without any usage direction.

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