sheets_batch_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly indicates a write operation, but discloses no information about authentication requirements, overwrite semantics, error behavior, or rate limits. The data example is helpful but does not explain the full behavioral contract of the mutation.

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 sentence with a compact inline example. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes just enough detail to convey the data format. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description provides a basic understanding, but it leaves gaps. It does not clarify whether the write overwrites existing values, whether ranges must be in A1 notation, or how errors from partial failures are handled. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the data format and constraints are still under-specified.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by illustrating the data parameter structure with an inline example. This clarifies that data should be an array of objects with 'range' and 'values' fields. The spreadsheet_id parameter is self-evident from its name.

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 writes to multiple ranges in one request, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from single-range write tools like sheets_write and raw_batch_update. The inclusion of a data format example further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 tool is for batching multiple range writes into a single request, which provides clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer sheets_write or sheets_raw_batch_update.

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