sheets_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it implies a mutating create but says nothing about required auth/scopes, default sharing state, or what is returned. Most critically, it never mentions that a spreadsheet ID is produced, which the agent needs to chain into sheets_write/sheets_append.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the tool under-explained rather than over-explained.

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?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should disclose the returned identifier and any side effects to be complete for a mutating tool.

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%, so both 'title' and 'sheetNames' are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (a new Google Sheets spreadsheet), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like sheets_read/sheets_write/sheets_append, but the naming and the 'new' qualifier make the distinction inferable.

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 versus sheets_write or sheets_append, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the spreadsheet must be created before writing to it). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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