named_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly discloses a key behavioral trait: creating or updating named ranges mutates workbook metadata but typically does not alter cell values. This is useful safety-relevant context, though it does not detail every side effect or permission requirement.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose statement, a parameter list, a return-type line, and a single note about mutation behavior. No sentence is wasted, and the most important action/resource information is front-loaded.

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 six-parameter multi-action tool, the description covers the action dispatch, parameter usage, return type, and a meaningful side-effect note. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return structure, but the description could be slightly richer on optional parameter dependencies and edge cases.

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%, but the Args section compensates by explaining each parameter's role and linking parameters to specific actions (e.g., destination for create, new_destination for update). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not fully specify range-string syntax or scope identifier formats.

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 opens with 'List, create, delete, or update named ranges within a workbook,' using specific action verbs and naming the exact resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling spreadsheet tools by focusing on named-range metadata rather than cell values or formatting.

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 enumerating the supported actions and noting that create/update alter workbook metadata rather than cell values. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the action-oriented parameter explanations make the intended use unambiguous.

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