sheets_batchUpdate

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by concretely explaining what destructive means: 'permanently delete content — e.g. removing a sheet or a conditional formatting rule — with no undo via the API.' This adds the crucial no-undo consequence and concrete examples, which annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and examples; the second delivers the critical destructive warning. Every part 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 write tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering mutability and destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It covers the scope of requests and the key risk (permanent deletes). It doesn't describe the response shape or permission requirements, but since no output schema exists those are minor gaps for invoking the tool.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's examples of request types ('conditional formatting, cell/border formatting, adding sheets') give a sense of what goes in the `requests` parameter, but it adds no format, syntax, or additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource, 'Apply updates to a spreadsheet,' and lists concrete use cases (conditional formatting, cell/border formatting, adding sheets). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like sheets_get and from value-only tools like sheets_values_update, which focus on cell values rather than structural/formatting changes.

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 implies usage context for structural/formatting changes and mentions destructive operations, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_values_update for simple value writes. The guidance is inferable from the examples but not stated as a selection rule.

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