sheets_update_sheet_properties

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether only specified properties are updated (partial update) or how the API responds. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't disclose the patch semantics, which is useful for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it could have included slightly more context without becoming verbose. Every word is necessary, but it's minimal in content.

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 tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It doesn't explain the partial-update behavior or what the API returns. However, with comprehensive schema descriptions and annotations, the agent can still use it correctly for basic property updates, but important behavioral gaps remain.

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 every parameter (spreadsheetId, sheetId, title, tabColor, gridProperties) has its own description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides the necessary 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 'Update properties of a sheet in a Google Sheets spreadsheet' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (sheet properties), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update values, format cells, or manage charts. The verb and resource are specific 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 provides clear context: use this tool to modify sheet-level properties (title, tab color, grid properties) in a spreadsheet. While it doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives, the operation is unique among siblings (there is no other 'update properties' tool), so the usage context is clear enough without exclusions.

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