Advanced batch update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: these are raw API requests requiring sheetId numbers obtained from get_spreadsheet_info, and it points to the Request object reference. It does not note batch-composition restrictions (e.g. requests that must run alone) or that malformed requests can damage sheets, but the bar is lower with annotations present.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the tool's identity and role before the example list. The prerequisite pointer (get_spreadsheet_info) is placed last where it belongs.

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 raw-API escape hatch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, request shape prerequisites, and ID sourcing. It stops short of warning about request-format pitfalls specific to batchUpdate (ordering/atomicity constraints, partial-failure behavior), which would be the remaining high-value detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that requests must use sheetId numbers (not names or A1 references) and by pointing at get_spreadsheet_info as the source for those IDs, which the schema itself only gestures at via an external docs URL.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send raw Google Sheets API batchUpdate requests") and immediately scopes it as the catch-all: "anything the other tools don't cover," with a concrete example list (named ranges, protected ranges, pivot tables, row heights, hiding rows, charts). An agent can distinguish this from format_range, add_chart, or add_pivot_table without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this only for capabilities the other tools don't cover, with examples that make the boundary concrete. It does not name the specific sibling tools to prefer first (format_range, add_chart, etc.), so the exclusion is implied by category rather than explicit, but the context is unambiguous.

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