update_worksheet

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 does disclose the valuable partial-update semantics ('Only provided properties are changed'), preventing unintended overwrites. It does not mention permission requirements, what happens to formulas/references when a sheet is renamed, or whether name collisions error out — 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the enumerable operations come first and the partial-update caveat closes it out. Nothing redundant with the schema is repeated verbatim.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the partial-update behavior but omits error/conflict behavior and permission context. Adequate to call correctly, not complete enough to predict outcomes confidently.

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 every parameter including 'sheetName' vs 'newName', position semantics, and tabColor clearing is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same field list without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update') plus resource ('an existing worksheet') and enumerates the five mutable aspects: rename, reposition, visibility, tab color, activate. This implicitly separates it from add_worksheet/delete_worksheet siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Only provided properties are changed' clarifies this is a partial-update tool, which implies it should be used instead of a full replacement. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing workbookId when multiple workbooks are connected.

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