update_sheet_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap—it lacks critical context like error conditions or side effects.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (mutation tool with nested parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or response format, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation. For a tool that modifies resources, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 and their nested structures. The description adds minimal value by listing 'title' and 'grid properties' as updatable, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics (e.g., format constraints or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('properties of a sheet'), and specifies the types of properties that can be updated ('title, grid properties'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_cells_format' or 'update_values' by focusing on sheet-level properties rather than cell content or formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'create_sheet' or 'delete_sheet' beyond the update action.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a spreadsheet and sheet ID), when this tool is appropriate compared to 'create_sheet' or 'delete_sheet', or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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