Patch CSVBox Sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses substantial behavior: PATCH merges, only listed items are touched, empty array is a no-op, matching by names with unmatched creating new items, _delete: true for removal, and that other fields on a _delete item are ignored. It also mentions the return is 'the API response.' This exceeds typical descriptions, though it omits error handling or permission nuances.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, input/output, merge semantics, matching rules, deletion, and usage advice. It's front-loaded with the purpose, and while it's longer than average, the complexity of the operation justifies the length. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, merge behavior, deletion), the description covers all critical aspects: how partial updates work, how to target items, how to delete, and the prerequisite validation step. It returns the API response but doesn't detail error cases, which is acceptable without an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the 'changes' object by explaining the internal structure (virtual_columns, validation_functions, data_transforms), how items are matched by names, and the _delete flag semantics. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 'Only the partial changes to apply to the sheet.'

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?

States a specific verb ('Partially update'), resource ('CSVBox sheet'), and the HTTP method (PATCH /1.1/sheet/{sheet_license_key}'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_sheet by emphasizing 'partial' and 'PATCH', and from create_sheet by 'update'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: 'This is the safe verb for applying generated functions' and instructs to 'Run validate_schema with mode patch first.' While it doesn't explicitly name update_sheet as an alternative, the 'partial' vs full update distinction and the 'safe verb' guidance effectively imply when to prefer this tool over others.

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