Append rows to a Google Sheet

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is established. The description adds useful access-scope context ('Hermoso can reach') and the row structure, but it does not disclose details such as append behavior at the end of the sheet, duplicate rows on retry, or any response shape.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place by explaining reachable sheets, ID provenance, and row structure. No fluff or redundancy.

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 annotations, the 100% schema coverage, and the tool's moderate complexity, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers resource eligibility and parameter sourcing. It lacks explicit guidance on what the tool returns after appending, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent exactly where to get spreadsheetId ('pass the spreadsheetId from create_sheet', 'find its id with list_drive_files'), which is actionable guidance beyond the schema's generic parameter description.

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 states a specific verb ('Append rows') and a specific resource ('a Google Sheet'), and adds meaningful scope: sheets Hermoso created or the user handed over via the file picker. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like append_to_doc and update_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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by explaining which sheets are eligible and how to obtain the spreadsheetId from create_sheet or list_drive_files. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_sheet or clear_sheet_range, so it stops short of a 5.

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