Create Spreadsheet

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the domain context that the created resource is a Google Spreadsheet, but it does not disclose side effects like Drive file creation, default sharing, or permission implications. This is acceptable given the annotations but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 short, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. For a simple creation tool, this is appropriately concise.

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 input schema and output schema cover the technical details, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. However, given the large sibling toolset, the description lacks enough context to help an agent decide between 'create_spreadsheet' and related tools like 'create_sheet' or 'import_to_google_sheets'. It is minimally viable but incomplete for tool selection.

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 the parameters 'title', 'sheet_names', and 'user_google_email' are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. This aligns with the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 the action ('Creates') and the resource ('a new Google Spreadsheet'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_sheet', which could be confused as creating a spreadsheet rather than a worksheet within one. A more explicit distinction would earn a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_sheet', 'create_drive_file', or 'import_to_google_sheets'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, ownership implications, or which sibling tools are more appropriate in specific scenarios.

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