Format a Google Sheet

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states it changes formatting but not cell values, and explains how to skip individual operations via parameters. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description enriches this with specifics about freezing and auto-size.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and then explains usage and parameter specifics. The rhetorical flourish about 'the difference between a spreadsheet someone reads and one they close' is not wasteful, but could be trimmed without loss.

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 formatting tool with no output schema, the description covers the core use case, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. It does not mention error handling or authorization, but those are covered by annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and are not critical 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 coverage is only 33% (only tab and freezeRows have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the defaults and how to override each operation (tab, freezeRows, boldHeader, autoResize). It does not detail sheetUrl/spreadsheetId, but those are conventional identifiers.

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 specific actions (bold header, freeze, auto-size) and the resource (exported sheet). It also distinguishes itself from create_sheet by describing it as a follow-up formatting step, not a creation or data mutation tool.

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 provides a concrete trigger ('Worth calling right after create_sheet') and explains why (raw export with unsized columns). It also notes that it changes no cell value and is never gated, implying non-destructive use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for editing values or when not to use it.

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