Write a 2D array of values to a Google Sheets range, overwriting existing cells. Use it to update or replace spreadsheet data programmatically.
Write data to a Google Sheets spreadsheet (overwrites existing data in range)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | Cell range in A1 notation (e.g., 'Sheet1!A1') | |
| values | Yes | 2D array of values to write (rows × columns) | |
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, which is key for avoiding data loss, but omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and return behavior for what is an unannotated 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?
A single tight sentence with the destructive caveat front-loaded in parentheses. Every element earns its place, no filler.
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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the overwrite disclosure covers the most important risk, but completeness is undermined by missing auth/permission context and response behavior.
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 range (A1 notation), values (2D array), and spreadsheetId are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already conveys, which meets the baseline.
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 (write) and resource (Google Sheets spreadsheet) plus a scope qualifier (overwrites existing data in range). This implicitly distinguishes it from sheets_append, though it never names the 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?
The '(overwrites existing data in range)' parenthetical hints that a non-destructive add operation exists elsewhere, implying sheets_append is the alternative, but no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.