rename_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that data and position are unchanged, which is the key behavioral guarantee. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites (e.g., unique new name), but for a simple rename, the provided detail is sufficient to avoid misunderstanding.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action and its constraints. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits parameter details and does not specify constraints like unique new name, leaving gaps for an agent to fill by inference.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not describe spreadsheet_id, sheet_name, or new_sheet_name beyond what their names imply. The agent must infer parameter purposes from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 renames a single sheet, using a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('sheet'). It adds the constraint 'without changing its data or position', which distinguishes it from siblings like copy_sheet or create_sheet. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when renaming a sheet) and what it does not do (alter data or position). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. The context is clear for a straightforward operation.

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