add_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a write operation (implied by 'Add'), returns the new sheet name, and has a specific limitation ('Not supported for CSV files'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential mutation nature and constraints well.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the return value, and the third provides a critical limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, key behavior (returns sheet name), and a major constraint (CSV limitation), which is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (file, name, position). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as file format requirements or name constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation completely.

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 specific action ('Add a new sheet') and target resource ('to the workbook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'copy_sheet', 'delete_sheet', or 'rename_sheet'. It precisely defines the operation without being tautological.

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 provides clear context by stating 'Not supported for CSV files', which helps the agent know when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or compare it to similar tools like 'copy_sheet' or 'create_workbook_file' for creating new sheets in different contexts.

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