Create sheet

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens if the sheet name already exists, whether the change is saved to disk, or the fact that a new empty sheet necessarily modifies the file. With annotations carrying the safety profile the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — nothing is wasted. It is, however, arguably too minimal given that this is a mutation tool, though brevity itself is not a flaw here since the schema is rich.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a file-mutating tool the description omits conflict behavior (duplicate sheet names), persistence semantics, and placement of the new sheet relative to siblings.

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 path, sheet, and position are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (naming rules, position defaults, path resolution), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Add an empty worksheet" names a specific verb (add) and resource (worksheet), and the modifier "empty" clarifies this creates a blank sheet rather than populating one. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_workbook or copy_sheet, but the action is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than create_workbook, copy_sheet, or import_workbook, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the workbook must already exist). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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