create_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses dry_run behavior (default True, returns planned creation without mutation) and return type (confirmation string). Missing details on error conditions (e.g., duplicate sheet name), authentication requirements beyond user_google_email, and potential side effects like renaming existing sheets.

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 structured with a purpose statement, Args list, and Returns note. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section repeats 'Required.' for each parameter, which could be condensed without loss.

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?

Covers basic usage: creating a sheet with given name in a spreadsheet. Describes dry_run behavior and return type. Missing details on error handling (e.g., if sheet name exists), maximum sheets per spreadsheet, or any other constraints. Output schema exists but is not provided; description compensates with text return type.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so in the Args section: each parameter has a brief description, type, and requirement status (e.g., 'Required.'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Creates a new sheet within an existing spreadsheet,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_spreadsheet, which creates a new spreadsheet, not a sheet within one.

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 implies usage by requiring a spreadsheet_id, suggesting the tool is for existing spreadsheets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives, such as create_spreadsheet for new spreadsheets or modify_sheet_values for editing cells.

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