Create a Google Sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the write-non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: rows are written as an array of row arrays with the first row as headers, and the call returns the spreadsheet id plus URL. It also notes the cross-tool connection requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: primary action with examples, row format, and return value plus prerequisite. The example list ('swipefile, ad list, or performance report') is slightly illustrative but useful for selecting the tool. Well front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call information: what is created, how to supply optional rows, what the response contains, and the required connector. Minor absences — default title behavior, handling of title collisions, or explicit guidance to prefer append_to_sheet for existing spreadsheets — keep it from a perfect score.

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%, with both rows and title documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the first row is headers and that rows are optional, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a crisp verb+resource statement — 'Create a new Google Spreadsheet in the user’s Drive' — and adds the optional fill-with-rows behavior. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_doc and append_to_sheet by emphasizing a brand-new spreadsheet, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 concrete usage examples (export a swipefile, ad list, performance report) and states the hard prerequisite of having Google Drive connected, including where to configure it. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative for appending to existing sheets, but the 'new spreadsheet' framing implies when to use this over append_to_sheet.

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