set_print_titles

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating that the tool can preserve or clear existing settings, not just set them. However, it does not disclose side effects, what 'preserve' means in terms of null values, or how dry_run and include_changes affect behavior. The annotation provides the destructive warning, but the description remains thin on operational detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is an appropriately sized and well-structured summary.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description does not explain how to use the parameters or what the tool returns. It omits critical details such as row/column syntax, the effect of dry_run, and the meaning of include_changes. The tool is not fully described for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 undocumented parameters, but it only mentions rows and columns in generic terms. It does not explain the accepted format (e.g., '1:3' or 'A:C') or the purpose of dry_run and include_changes. The two required parameters filepath and sheet_name are factually obvious, but the core parameters rows and columns are left under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb set with a clear resource: 'repeating print title rows and columns.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_print_area by focusing on print titles rather than the print area. The three actions (set, preserve, clear) fully convey the tool's scope.

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 phrase 'repeating print title rows and columns' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention of alternatives. Sibling tools such as set_print_area or freeze_panes exist, but the description does not differentiate them or state exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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