Add a sheet (tab) to a Rootr spreadsheet

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

The description states 'without touching other sheets', which is a behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It clarifies the operation is additive and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (e.g., sheet count limits) or authorization requirements.

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 that conveys all essential information without any redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., the new sheet's ID or success status). It also does not explain behavior on errors (e.g., duplicate name). For a create operation, this omission reduces completeness. The description is adequate for basic use but lacks expected output context.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning—only 'empty sheet' which is implicit from the context. Since the schema already explains parameters, the description does not compensate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a new empty sheet (tab) to an existing Rootr SPREADSHEET'. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('sheet/tab' to a spreadsheet), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rootr_create_spreadsheet' (whole spreadsheet) and 'rootr_delete_sheet'.

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 when to use (to add a new empty sheet to an existing spreadsheet) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. For example, it does not address potential conflicts like duplicate sheet names or the difference from updating existing sheets. Usage guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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