set_row_heights

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint (a mutation operation). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the intended effect, such as whether existing heights are overwritten, the unit of measure, or the meaning of dry_run/include_changes. It fails to disclose any non-obvious side effects.

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?

A single concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given a 5-parameter tool with a nested heights object and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits critical details such as how rows are identified (e.g., row numbers), the expected format of heights, the purpose of dry_run/include_changes, and safety implications beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'heights' object's structure (row identifier → number) is not clarified, nor are dry_run and include_changes. The description offers minimal semantic value for the five parameters.

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') and resource ('explicit heights for one or more worksheet rows'), which clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_column_widths or autofit_columns.

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 implies usage (when you need to fix row heights manually) but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives such as autofit_columns. This is a minimal, implied-level of guidance.

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