Write data to a specific Google Sheets range using A1 notation, choosing RAW or USER_ENTERED input to update cells directly.
Write values to a spreadsheet range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 notation range to write | |
| values | Yes | 2D array of values as JSON string (e.g. '[["A","B"],["C","D"]]') | |
| 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 communicate that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Write values', such as whether existing cell content is replaced, how valueInputOption affects behavior, or how values are interpreted. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 extremely concise: a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is well front-loaded, though so sparse that it carries very little information beyond the tool name.
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 operation with multiple required parameters and a nontrivial valueInputOption, the description is too incomplete. The agent still does not know that writing replaces the range, how values should be formatted beyond the schema, or when this tool is preferable to append. The schema covers parameter names but not the operational semantics needed for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a clear action ('Write values') and a clear resource ('a spreadsheet range'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling sheets_values_append, which also writes values in some sense, so it misses the meaningful contrast between overwriting a range and appending.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_values_append or sheets_batchUpdate. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen or what constraints apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.