add_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the sheet is empty, with no mention of side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the new sheet becomes active. This is 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description covers the core action and index usage. However, it omits details like name uniqueness requirements, return value (e.g., sheet ID), and activation behavior, which would aid completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the index parameter's effect (first vs. last). However, it does not describe the required 'name' or 'session_id' parameters, leaving gaps.

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 'Add a new empty sheet,' using a specific verb (add) and resource (sheet), which accurately reflects the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like copy_sheet or delete_sheet without confusion.

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 guidance on the index parameter ('index 0 puts it first; omit to append at the end') but does not compare this tool to alternatives like copy_sheet or rename_sheet. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given.

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