Dropdowns and validation

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description mainly restates the operation list that the schema enum already provides. It never explains whether existing validation on the range is overwritten, what 'clear' removes, or what authorization/account context is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, then the mode enumeration. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves the type-conditional parameter requirements (which params are needed for dropdown vs number_between vs clear) unexplained. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers most fields, but the type-to-parameter mapping is missing.

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 63%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds only a restatement of the type modes and implies 'range', saying nothing about min/max for number_between, options payload shape, or strict, so it does not meaningfully compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (add data validation) and resource (a range), and enumerates the six operation modes that match the type enum exactly. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like add_conditional_format or format_range, which is the only reason it falls 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 mode list implies when each variant applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as conditional formatting. Usage is left to inference from the enum names.

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