sort_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'sort' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires write permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to data outside the sorted range, or any rate limits/constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward operation and front-loads the essential information (sorting a range). Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to existing data, what the return value contains, or error conditions. Given the complexity of modifying spreadsheet data and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'by one or more columns' which aligns with the 'sort_specs' array parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides about how sorting actually works or the implications of different sort specifications.

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 clearly states the action ('sort') and target ('a range by one or more columns'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_update_values' or 'update_values' that might also modify spreadsheet content, leaving room for ambiguity about when sorting is the appropriate operation versus other data manipulation methods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that modify spreadsheet data (e.g., 'update_values', 'batch_update_values', 'find_and_replace'), there's no indication of whether sorting is preferred for reorganization versus other update operations, or any prerequisites for using this tool.

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