sheets_insert_sheet

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., behavior on duplicate titles or side effects). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that states the core purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and object.

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 full schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple add-sheet operation. However, it does not mention optional parameters' effects or expected return value, though the schema partially covers this. It is complete enough for typical 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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, such as how index or rowCount affect 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?

The description clearly states the action (add), the object (a new sheet), and the scope (existing spreadsheet), distinguishing it from creating a new spreadsheet. It is concise and 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?

The description implies the use case (adding a sheet to an existing spreadsheet) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks exclusions or comparative guidance against sibling tools like sheets_create_spreadsheet or sheets_duplicate_sheet.

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