Move Sheet Rows

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing the batchUpdate sequence (copyPaste then deleteDimension), the lack of rollback on partial failure, and the risk of duplication if only the delete fails. It also discloses that formulas, data types, and formatting are preserved, and clarifies 1-based row indexing. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail that materially affects invocation and outcome expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by implementation detail, a critical failure caveat, and a preservation note. Every sentence conveys essential operational or behavioral information without fluff. The structure allows an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does and what risks to anticipate.

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 mutation tool with destructive annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: execution mechanism, failure semantics, preservation guarantees, and row indexing. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites such as the destination sheet needing to exist or constraints like source and destination differing, but these are less critical given the schema and output schema already provide structure. Overall, enough context is present for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the 1-based and inclusive nature of start_row and end_row. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond reaffirming 1-based row numbers and noting rows are moved within the same spreadsheet. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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: 'Moves rows from one sheet to another within the same spreadsheet.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinct from typical read/write tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, instead relying on the phrase 'unlike a values.get/append round-trip' to contrast with an approach rather than a specific named alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description explains that formatting and formulas are preserved 'unlike a values.get/append round-trip,' which hints at when this tool is preferable, but it does not state clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for full-fidelity moves within the same spreadsheet.

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