sheets_create

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as required auth, side effects (e.g., whether existing data is overwritten), response format, or any defaults. For a mutation tool without annotations, this level of disclosure is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and optional parameter without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its basic purpose and optional parameter. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the context is incomplete for an agent needing to know prerequisites, side effects, or when to prefer alternatives. The existence of an output schema mitigates some missing return-value detail, but not enough to raise the score.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating 'title' is the spreadsheet name and 'sheet_names' are custom sheet/tab names, but it does not clarify parameter types, array formats, or defaults beyond what the schema already provides in property names.

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 'Create a new Google Spreadsheet with optional custom sheet/tab names' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sheets_add_sheet which adds to an existing spreadsheet. It also mentions the optional custom sheets, making the tool's function immediately obvious.

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 clearly implies use when creating a new Google Spreadsheet, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from sheets_add_sheet for adding tabs to an existing spreadsheet.

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