set_worksheet_visibility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the allowed visibility values, which is helpful but not deep behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, side effects). With annotations present, the baseline is lower and the description provides minimal extra value.

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 conveys the core action and allowed values with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including dry_run and include_changes, but the description does not explain their behavior or return values. There is no output schema, so the agent lacks critical context about the tool's side effects and output. The description is incomplete for a tool with this many parameters.

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. It does clarify that 'visibility' accepts 'visible', 'hidden', or 'veryHidden', which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides no information about filepath, sheet_name, dry_run, or include_changes, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 'worksheet visibility' and enumerates the exact allowed values (visible, hidden, veryHidden). This fully distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like delete_worksheet or rename_worksheet.

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: if you need to change worksheet visibility, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, so it relies on implication rather than explicit direction.

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