Update a Rootr spreadsheet (config/icon, or replace all sheets)

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

The description clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: passing the 'sheets' parameter replaces every existing sheet, which is destructive despite annotations saying destructiveHint=false. The warning about reading first adds important context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: 'Merge-patch a Rootr spreadsheet'. Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (mutating with conditional destructive behavior) and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main operations (config/icon update vs. sheet replacement), warns about destructive behavior, suggests prerequisite actions, and points to alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'sheets' replaces the entire array and that omitted existing sheets are dropped, which goes beyond the schema description. This justifies a score of 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Merge-patch a Rootr spreadsheet: update config/icon, or REPLACE THE WHOLE sheets array'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rootr_create_sheet and rootr_patch_spreadsheet_cells by explaining when to use those instead.

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 explicit guidance: 'call rootr_read_spreadsheet first and resend sheets you want to keep, or prefer rootr_create_sheet / rootr_patch_spreadsheet_cells for incremental changes'. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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