sheets_insert_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'shifting content,' which is a useful behavioral trait, but omits critical details like how indices work, whether formatting is inherited, permission requirements, reversibility, and side effects on existing data or formulas.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a necessary parameter clarification. However, extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which isn't a conciseness issue but does slightly reduce the value of its structure.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain index ranges, the inherit_before flag, or the context for when to insert rows vs columns. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing operational context and parameter semantics.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'dimension' parameter's allowed values ('ROWS' or 'COLUMNS'), leaving start_index, end_index, inherit_before, and other parameters unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters, especially one requiring index semantics.

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 action ('Insert blank rows or columns') and its resource target, with an explicit statement about shifting content. The dimension clarification ('ROWS' or 'COLUMNS') further distinguishes it from related tools like sheets_delete_dimension and sheets_move_dimension.

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 versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context such as 'use delete_dimension to remove rows'. It only gives a brief hint about the dimension parameter, which is more of a parameter note than a usage guideline.

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