map_set_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Set' clearly indicates a write operation, and 'sheet-level' scopes it to the current sheet. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites the entire notes field, requires permissions, or behaves differently on locked sheets.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, stating the exact action and target.

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?

This is a simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description is sufficient for its low complexity, clearly indicating the action and scope. It could mention whether the current sheet must be active, but that is implicitly understood from 'sheet-level' and sibling tools.

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%: the 'notes' parameter is described as 'Notes content', which aligns exactly with the description's 'sheet-level notes text'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the sheet-level notes text'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_get_notes (retrieval) and other update tools by specifying the exact target.

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: use this to set sheet-level notes, and implicitly map_get_notes to retrieve them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an active sheet.

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