set_dimensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses units and the optional autofit behavior, but says nothing about overwriting existing dimensions, what happens when columnWidth and autofitColumns are both supplied, whether sheet protection blocks the operation, or whether the change is undoable. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, with the optional autofit capability following. No filler and nothing repeated beyond the necessary unit clarification.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the agent guessing about parameter conflicts, protection/auth requirements, and the effect on existing dimension settings. Adequate to invoke, not adequate to invoke confidently in edge cases.

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 seven parameters are documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces units and the width/height split but adds no new semantics — in particular it doesn't explain the precedence or interaction between columnWidth and autofitColumns (or rowHeight and autofitRows), which is the one thing the schema cannot convey.

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: setting column widths and/or row heights for a range, with units (points) and an optional autofit mode. An agent can tell this is a dimension-mutation tool rather than a formatting or content tool. It stops short of distinguishing itself from overlapping siblings like autofit_range or format_range.

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 description ('set column widths and/or row heights'), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. Notably, the sibling autofit_range overlaps with the autofitColumns/autofitRows options here, and the description never says which to prefer. No prerequisites such as sheet protection or workbook selection are mentioned.

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