mark_sheet_row_done

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the visible side effect: the row is painted light green. It also states the semantic meaning of that color change, 'ya subida'. It does not mention permissions, persistence, or undo behavior, but for a simple visual-marker tool the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 short sentence that begins with the action and ends with the purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or content that duplicates the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter visual mutation tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but without annotations, an output schema, or parameter-level help for sheetId, there are still notable gaps around return behavior and reversibility. The low complexity of the tool keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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?

The schema describes rowIndex well with a row-numbering rule, but sheetId has no schema description. The description adds no parameter-level guidance: it only refers to 'el Sheet' and does not clarify what sheetId should contain or how to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Pinta de verde claro una fila del Sheet' makes clear the action and target. The purpose clause 'para marcarla como ya subida' states the intended outcome, which also distinguishes it from unconnected sibling tools like list_nodes and create_node.

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 'para marcarla como ya subida' provides clear context for when this tool should be used: after a row has been uploaded and needs to be visually marked. No alternative tool is referenced, and none of the siblings appears to overlap with this row-marking action, so the selection is unambiguous.

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