Clear cells

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that formatting survives the clear and that contents are retained for undo_last. It still doesn't explain the undocumented dry_run flag's effect or any limits on undo.

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 tight sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and the formatting/undo caveat immediately after; every clause earns its place.

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 4-param mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the two behaviors an agent most needs (formatting preserved, contents recoverable). The unexplained dry_run parameter is the only real omission.

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 75% and the schema itself gives A1 syntax, account resolution, and spreadsheet ID semantics, so the description is correct to stay out of it. However, dry_run is documented nowhere, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource (clear values and formulas in a range) and adds a scope qualifier — formatting is kept — that separates it from destructive range/row operations. It does not name a sibling like delete_rows_or_columns or format_range to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mention that previous contents are saved for undo_last implies a recoverable workflow, which is light usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. write_range/fill_range/format_range guidance and no stated preconditions.

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