mcp-gsheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains how empty rows are handled ('Empty rows in your data array still count as rows!'), warns about row count mismatches, and gives specific examples of range behavior (fixed vs. flexible expansion). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error responses, but provides operational clarity.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise, bullet-like examples and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential usage guidance without redundancy. Structure is efficient and scannable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good operational context for a mutation tool, covering key behavioral traits and examples. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values, but is sufficiently complete for basic use with the well-documented schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing range behavior through examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Update values'), resource ('in a specified range of a Google Sheets spreadsheet'), and distinguishes from siblings like sheets_append_values (which adds) or sheets_clear_values (which removes). It provides concrete examples that reinforce the core purpose.

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 on when to use specific range formats (fixed vs. flexible) with examples, but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like sheets_batch_update_values or sheets_append_values from the sibling list. Guidance is practical but lacks sibling differentiation.

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