Modify Sheet Values

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description's mention of 'clear values' aligns with the destructive hint without adding substantive new behavioral context. It does add the scope specificity ('specific range') and the three modes, but it does not disclose overwrite semantics, irreversibility, or auth requirements beyond what the annotations imply. The bar is lower because of annotations, but the description still adds only modest value.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core verb and resource before listing the modes. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema is already self-documenting.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that declare destructiveness, the description covers the essential behavioral contract. It clearly states the operation scope and the three modes, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases. It is slightly terse for a 6-parameter mutation tool, but the missing details are all present in the structured fields.

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 baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description's phrase 'write, update, or clear values' loosely maps to the values and clear_values parameters, but it does not clarify representation, defaults, or interpretation rules that the schema does not already cover. No additional parameter-level meaning is added.

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 ('Modifies') and resource ('values in a specific range of a Google Sheet'), and enumerates the three actions it can perform ('write, update, or clear values'). This is clear and non-tautological, and it implicitly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like read_sheet_values. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope against alternatives such as append_table_rows, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or related tools. The only usage signal is the verb 'Modifies', which is implied by the tool name rather than explained. The schema covers parameter-level conditions, but the description itself offers no decision support.

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