insert_or_delete_range

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

With no annotations at all, the description should carry the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: existing cells are shifted rather than overwritten. It omits whether the operation expands the worksheet, what happens if shifted cells fall off the sheet boundary, and whether the change is undoable — real gaps for a structural mutation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its side effect front-loaded before the constraint detail. Every clause 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 5-parameter structural mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side effect, and the key parameter coupling. It is slightly thin on failure modes and scope limits, but an agent can call it correctly from this.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining shift directions per action ('for insert, shift is Down or Right; for delete, Up or Left') — the schema's enum allows all four values for both actions. That is a genuine validity constraint the schema alone does not express.

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 pair and resource ('Insert or delete a range') plus the side effect ('shifting existing cells'), which clearly separates it from read/write/format siblings such as write_range or clear_range. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops 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 second sentence implies the correct usage path by pairing action values with valid shift directions, which is genuinely useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives like write_range, clear_range, or set_merge, and no prerequisites are given.

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