Update a specified range in Google Sheets with new values, optionally applying input interpretation or formatting rules.
Update data in Google Sheets with optional formatting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | The range to update (e.g., A1) | |
| values | Yes | Array of arrays containing the values to write | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | The ID of the spreadsheet | |
| valueInputOption | No | How the input should be interpreted | USER_ENTERED |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to explain behavioral traits. It only states 'update data' without detailing whether it overwrites existing values, how it handles empty ranges, return values, or side effects. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect usage.
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 and straight to the point. It is one sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary fluff. The inclusion of 'optional formatting' is slightly inaccurate but does not significantly affect conciseness.
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 large number of sibling tools, the description lacks context about return values, error behavior, or how it differs from related operations like batch updates or formatting. This incompleteness makes it harder for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior and fit within a workflow.
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 descriptions cover all four parameters, providing basic information for each. However, the description for 'valueInputOption' ('How the input should be interpreted') is vague and does not clarify the difference between RAW and USER_ENTERED, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. The other parameters are adequately described.
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 updates data in Google Sheets, with a specific resource and action. The phrase 'optional formatting' is slightly misleading because the parameters do not include formatting options, but the core purpose is still clear.
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 similar siblings like sheets_batch_update, sheets_set_formula, or sheets_clear_range. Without any differentiation, an agent may struggle to select the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.