sheets_set_data_validation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects and edge cases. It does not explain what happens to existing data validation on the range, how the 'strict' parameter influences behavior, or what response to expect. The enumeration of rule types is helpful but 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and the accepted rule types. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's high parameter count (9), lack of annotations, and a schema with no descriptions, the description only covers the basic purpose and rule_type values. It does not explain parameter meanings, side effects, or provide any usage context, leaving the description inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'rule_type' by listing its allowed values, but leaves the spreadsheet_id, sheet_id, range coordinates, 'values', and 'strict' parameters fully unexplained. This is a major gap given the tool's complexity.

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 'Add data validation' to a 'cell range', specifying the supported rule types (dropdown, checkbox, number/text/date constraint). It lists the exact allowed values for rule_type, which distinguishes it from other sheets tools like conditional formatting or cell formatting.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_add_conditional_format or sheets_format_cells. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without concrete direction.

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