create_named_range

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the workbook-level vs sheet-scoped distinction, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing ranges, what happens on dry_run, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides only marginal additional context.

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 a single, concise sentence that avoids redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured to include a couple of key parameters or caveats without becoming verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin to provide complete operational context. It doesn't explain the required filepath, range_ref, or name parameters, nor the effect of optional flags like hidden, dry_run, or replace. This is a complex creation tool that needs more detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It only hints at the 'scope_sheet' parameter via 'sheet-scoped' without explaining any other parameters (e.g., hidden, dry_run, replace, sheet_name). This is insufficient for understanding how to set up the operation.

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 a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('named range') and distinguishes scope options ('workbook-level or sheet-scoped'). This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like inspect_named_range, list_named_ranges, and delete_named_range.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose workbook-level vs sheet-scoped, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or edge cases (e.g., existing range without 'replace' flag). The only implied usage is creating a named range, which is obvious from the name.

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