Append rows to the end of a Google Sheets spreadsheet by passing the spreadsheet ID, target sheet or range, and a 2D array of values.
Append rows to the end of a Google Sheets spreadsheet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | Sheet name or range to append to (e.g., 'Sheet1') | |
| values | Yes | 2D array of values to append | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Google Sheets spreadsheet ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies additive/non-destructive behavior. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether appending extends the range or requires the sheet to exist, how existing formatting or formulas are treated, or what the response contains. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word (verb, direction, resource) contributes to identifying the tool.
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?
The tool is structurally simple (3 required scalar/array params, no nesting, no output schema), and the description identifies the action adequately. However, with no annotations, it should have covered at least whether the append is destructive to existing data and what the agent needs before calling.
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 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema (range format, 2D values array, spreadsheet ID). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (append) and resource (Google Sheets spreadsheet) with a clear scope qualifier ('rows to the end'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sheets_write by emphasizing append-at-end semantics, but never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this instead of sheets_write or sheets_create, no mention of prerequisites (auth, sharing, whether the sheet/range must already exist), and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the word 'append' itself, which the agent must interpret on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.