spreadsheet_append_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that rows are added at the end, but says nothing about side effects, row format expectations, error behavior, authorization, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated up front. It is concise and easily parseable, though it is thin on detail.

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 three required parameters, a nested rows structure, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, row formatting, return values, or how this tool fits with the sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The nested array structure of 'rows' is left completely undocumented, and 'filename' and 'sheet' are not explained. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Adiciona' and a clear resource: rows at the end of a sheet. This clearly indicates an append operation and distinguishes it from siblings like spreadsheet_update_cell and spreadsheet_read_range, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 usage is implied by the append-to-end semantics: use this tool when you need to add rows to a sheet. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no caveats such as whether the sheet must already exist.

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