Rename sheet

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, which is the safety baseline. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: renaming does NOT update formulas referencing the old name, a side effect an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It omits error behavior (e.g. duplicate-name collisions), keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully covers the parameters. The one non-obvious side effect (formula references not updated) is disclosed, leaving only minor gaps such as duplicate-name error handling.

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%: path, sheet and new_name are each fully documented in the schema, including path resolution and name-character constraints. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename a worksheet'), which is trivially distinguishable from siblings like create_sheet, copy_sheet and delete_sheet. It stops short of explicitly contrasting against those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the sheet must exist, the new name must be unique). The caveat about formulas is behavioral rather than usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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