sheets_write

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that existing cells are replaced, making the overwrite effect explicit. While annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description clarifies the in-place replacement trait. It does not, however, disclose side effects implied by openWorldHint=true or any authorization/format behaviors.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the clarifying sentence about replacement is useful. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a simple mutation tool.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal to be complete. It gives no guidance on range formatting, value dimensions, required spreadsheet context, or when to use this tool versus siblings, so an agent would need to rely on external knowledge.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain the syntax of 'range', the 2D structure of 'values', or the role of 'spreadsheetId'. No parameter detail is provided beyond the names in the schema, leaving agents without sufficient information to construct a correct call.

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 ('Overwrite') and resource ('a range'), and clarifies that existing cells are replaced, which clearly distinguishes it from read or append operations like sheets_read and sheets_append. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings by name, so it misses the top score.

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 implies the tool is for overwriting cell ranges but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as sheets_append or sheets_get. There is no stated prerequisite, no mention of when not to use it, and the sibling names are not addressed.

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