format_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait beyond the schema: 'Only the provided properties are changed' (partial, additive update). However it omits permissions, whether changes are reversible, which workbook/sheet it targets by default, and what the operation returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and property inventory, then the key partial-update constraint. No wasted text for a 17-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 17 parameters, the description covers the 'what' but is thin on behavior—no mention of permission requirements, response, or targeting defaults (which leak into schema-only fields like workbookId/sheetName). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters and baseline is 3. The description reinforces the grouping of fields but adds little syntax beyond the schema, and its mention of border 'weight' doesn't correspond to any actual parameter (schema has only borderStyle/borderColor).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Format a range') and immediately enumerates exactly which formatting facets are controllable (font, fill, borders, alignment, wrap, number format). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like clear_range or write_range without opening the schema.

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 'Format a range' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as clear_range for removing formatting or autofit_range. The agent must infer context from the sibling list.

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