clear_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully states that both contents and formatting are cleared in the live workbook, which discloses the destructive scope. It does not mention reversibility, confirmation needs, permissions, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The destructive action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple three-parameter mutation with a complete schema and no output schema. However, because there are no annotations identifying destructive behavior, it should do more to flag irreversibility or safe-usage constraints before an agent invokes it.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the basic range concept, which is acceptable at the baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 and resource: 'Clear the contents and formatting of a range' in the 'live workbook'. It implies a distinction from read_range, write_range, and format_range by emphasizing both content and formatting removal, but it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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 purpose: an agent can infer this is the tool for emptying a range. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as write_range or format_range.

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