Clear a range in a Google Sheet

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing the two-call confirmation mechanism, the 'nothing is cleared' behavior without confirm, the confirmCells echo purpose, and the post-clear readback verification. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 lengthy but every sentence carries essential operational information: the destructive warning, the confirmation flow, the echo rationale, and the alternative. It is structured logically, starting with the action, then the destructive warning, then the workflow. While not terse, it avoids redundancy and earns its length.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the user gets back (the number of filled cells on the unconfirmed call, and a confirmation only if the range is truly empty). It also warns about the common range-mistake scenario. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly perform the two-step destructive operation, though it does not describe error cases or edge conditions beyond that.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates substantially. It explains the confirm workflow, the confirmCells parameter ('echo back the filled-cell count'), and gives an A1:Z1000 example for range. It does not detail sheetUrl/spreadsheetId, but those are common and not critical for a destructive tool whose main parameters are well explained.

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 action ('Empty a range of cells') on a specific resource ('a Google Sheet') and explicitly differentiates from a sibling ('To remove a whole tab instead, use manage_sheet_tabs'). It also clarifies that rows remain in place, leaving no ambiguity about what clearing entails.

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 a detailed when-to-use and when-not-to-use guide. It explains the mandatory two-step confirmation workflow, warns about the no-default-range policy, and explicitly names the alternative tool for removing whole tabs. This leaves no inference needed for safe invocation.

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