sheets_create_spreadsheet

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

The description provides no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates the core action without adding details like return value, permissions, or side effects. Since it adds no additional disclosure, it earns a below-baseline score despite having 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 a single, lean sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity, front-loading the action and resource clearly.

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 tool with only two parameters and a complete schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks any mention of return values (e.g., spreadsheet ID or URL), which is critical for a create operation. With no output schema, the description should have specified what the agent can expect as a result, making the context incomplete.

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%, with both parameters (title and sheets) fully described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, such as constraints or behaviors, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics.

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 'Create a new Google Sheets spreadsheet' clearly states the verb (create) and the resource (Google Sheets spreadsheet), which differentiates it from sibling tools like sheets_create_chart or sheets_insert_sheet. However, it does not explicitly elaborate on the scope or add value over the tool name, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_insert_sheet (for adding a sheet to an existing spreadsheet) or when not to use it. The description only states the action without any contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation from the schema and tool name.

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