sheets_update_borders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but offers no details on destructive effects, required permissions, or behavior when borders already exist. It does not explain what happens to other cell styles or whether the update is incremental or replaces all borders.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, fulfilling the need for brevity. However, conciseness is not an excuse for missing critical information.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the 'borders' object structure, the 'range' format, or the update behavior. The tool has three required parameters, including a complex nested object, but the description provides no guidance on how to use them.

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 0%, meaning the schema does not describe the parameters. The description fails to add meaning: it mentions 'cells' but does not clarify the structure of the 'borders' object (e.g., expected keys like top, bottom, left, right, style, color) or the format of 'range' (e.g., A1 notation). The parameter names alone are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Update borders of cells in a Google Sheet' uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('borders of cells in a Google Sheet'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as 'sheets_format_cells' or 'sheets_update_values', which handle general formatting or data updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'sheets_format_cells' that might also affect borders, the agent has no basis to choose this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with other tools.

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