set_worksheet_protection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that protection restricts user edits and affects locked cells, but it omits important details such as whether unprotecting requires the password, whether protection is reversible, and what permissions are needed.

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?

The description is two focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise behavioral note about locked cells.

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 low-complexity, four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main remaining gaps are behavioral details around password requirements and permissions, but the schema covers all parameter semantics.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate baseline behavior when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (protect/unprotect) and resource (worksheet), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like update_worksheet, so it falls 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 description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as update_worksheet or delete_worksheet. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are provided, leaving usage entirely implied.

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