sheets_add_protected_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that warning_only=False restricts editing to editor_emails, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as coordinate system, whether existing protections are overwritten, or permission requirements. This partial disclosure earns a 3.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the main verb front-loaded. No word is wasted, and the second sentence adds critical parameter context. It earns a 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?

Given 9 parameters, 6 required, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial usage details such as coordinate indexing, the relationship between warning_only and editor_emails, and any prerequisites. Even with an output schema, the agent lacks context to invoke correctly. Score 2.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the semantics of warning_only and editor_emails. The range parameters (start_row, end_row, etc.) are left to inference, and the coordinate system is not specified. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool, so a score of 2 is given.

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 uses the imperative 'Protect a cell range from editing,' which clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sheets_add_named_range by specifying protection functionality. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies the use case: when you need to restrict editing on a cell range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the clear purpose makes it self-evident. Since there is no direct sibling for protection, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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