Append rows to a Google Sheet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, signaling a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the reachability constraint (created vs. user-shared sheets) which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists, and it explains the source of valid spreadsheet IDs.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers key details about eligibility and the rows format. Every phrase contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple append tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, which sheets are valid, how to obtain IDs, and the format of rows. The optional range parameter is documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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% for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that spreadsheetId can come from create_sheet or list_drive_files, which clarifies the allowed values. For 'rows', it repeats the schema description, but the added id-source info justifies a 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 action 'Append rows' and the resource 'Google Sheet', and explicitly defines the set of reachable sheets (created by Hermoso or handed over via file picker). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sheet, clear_sheet_range, and read_sheet, making the tool's purpose 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?

It gives concrete guidance on how to obtain the spreadsheetId — via create_sheet or list_drive_files — and specifies the condition of which sheets are eligible. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus alternatives, but the tool name and purpose make that distinction clear, so the guidance is adequate.

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