add_worksheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two side effects an agent wouldn't otherwise know: the new sheet becomes active, and the response includes the new name and position. It says nothing about persistence (whether the workbook is saved), permission requirements, or what happens to the previously active sheet.

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 clauses, zero waste: the action and its options first, then the return values. Every sentence 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 three-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (name and position), which is exactly the gap an absent output schema leaves. Missing only persistence/permission context, which is minor here.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, position, and workbookId fully. The description only echoes position optionally and the auto-generation/activation semantics, adding little beyond structured data; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new worksheet to the workbook') plus two behavioral details: optional position and activation. It is clearly distinguishable from update_worksheet/delete_worksheet by the verb, though it never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb – add a sheet when one is needed – and 'optionally at a specific position' hints at the insertion use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as update_worksheet for existing sheets.

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