Append values to a spreadsheet range, adding new rows after the last row to extend the dataset.
Append values after the last row of a spreadsheet range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 notation range to append to | |
| values | Yes | 2D array of values as JSON string | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | The spreadsheet ID | |
| valueInputOption | Yes | RAW or USER_ENTERED |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is not destructive, and the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that data is appended after the last row. This conveys non-overwriting semantics beyond what annotations state.
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?
A single nine-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the core operation and its location.
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?
The description is adequate for invoking the tool because the schema covers all parameters, but it does not mention what the operation returns, how existing data is preserved, or when to prefer append over update. With no output schema, these are notable gaps.
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 input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Append'), a clear resource ('values...to a spreadsheet range'), and a distinguishing behavior ('after the last row'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like sheets_values_update and sheets_values_get.
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 phrase 'after the last row' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: adding new rows rather than modifying existing data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.