Create Sheet

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the key behavioral fact that it can either create a blank sheet or duplicate an existing sheet, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects, copy behavior, naming conflicts, or permission requirements.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact signature. There is no filler, though the signature partially duplicates information already present in the schema.

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 tool with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is adequate but lean: it states the core operation and lists all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Missing context includes when each optional parameter applies, how duplication differs from creating a blank sheet, and how this tool differs from create_spreadsheet.

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?

The description includes the full function signature, which helps identify all five parameters and their optionality, and the phrase 'duplicates an existing sheet' gives meaning to source_sheet_name. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, but there are no per-parameter explanations such as how insert_sheet_index behaves or the relationship between sheet_name and source_sheet_name.

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 clear action and resource: it creates a new sheet or duplicates an existing one, which is specific and not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_spreadsheet, but the use of 'sheet' and the spreadsheet_id parameter make the target resource reasonably clear.

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 intended use case is implied by the phrasing: use this tool when a new sheet tab or a duplicate of an existing sheet is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer create_spreadsheet instead, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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