set_worksheet_protection

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already flags this as a mutating operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only mentioning 'optional capability flags.' It does not disclose the effects of password protection, how options alter behavior, or any side effects. While the annotation lowers the bar, the description still provides little additional transparency.

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 conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It doesn't mention the return value, potential errors, password semantics, or the effect of dry_run/include_changes. The agent is left without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It only mentions 'optional capability flags' which vaguely alludes to the 'options' parameter, but leaves filepath, sheet_name, enabled, password, dry_run, and include_changes completely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: enabling or disabling worksheet protection, with optional capability flags. The verb 'enable or disable' is specific and the resource 'worksheet protection' is clear. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_worksheet_protection by indicating a mutating action.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_worksheet_protection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about when enabling/disabling protection might be appropriate.

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