Set a filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates spreadsheet state without being flagged destructive. The description adds real context by identifying the feature as the 'basic filter / header row buttons' so the agent knows it is a view-level construct, but it says nothing about whether an existing filter is replaced, whether permissions are needed, or what it returns. Worth noting the mild tension between 'clear' (removes the existing filter) and destructiveHint=false, though a filter is arguably non-destructive metadata.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the alternate mode, with no filler. The parenthetical clarification earns its space by disambiguating the feature.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden but the tool's effect is self-evident (filter buttons on/off). Four parameters at 75% schema coverage plus annotations leave only small gaps: no guidance on the required range when clearing and no note about interaction with existing filters.

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 75%, with the range, account and spreadsheet parameters all documented in the schema and the clear flag left bare. The description only implicitly references the clear behavior via 'or clear the tab's filter' and adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('turn on a basic filter for a range') and a second mode ('clear the tab's filter'), and the parenthetical 'filter buttons in the header row' pins down which filter feature is meant versus an advanced filter. No sibling tool in the list touches filters, so differentiation is effectively implicit rather than stated.

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?

It conveys the two usage modes (set vs. clear), and the schema notes the range argument doubles as a tab name when clearing, which is genuinely useful. However it never states prerequisites (e.g. whether a header row must exist, whether a range is required when clearing) or any when-not condition.

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