sheet_management

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags delete as destructive, notes that hide cannot hide all visible sheets, explains tab_color '000000' clears the color, and defines move offset semantics. It adds actionable behavioral context beyond a simple 'manage sheets' statement, though it could mention side effects on formulas or undo options.

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 well-structured with a concise summary, numbered action details, and clear sections for returns, raises, and notes. It is appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though the dispatch mapping in Notes is an internal implementation detail that is not essential for callers and adds minor bloat.

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 (multiple actions, 6 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers required arguments per action, key constraints, and error behavior. It stops short of a 5 because it does not address edge cases like renaming to an existing name or whether delete can remove the last remaining sheet, but these are likely expected from context.

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 fully compensates by detailing exactly which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., new_name for rename/copy, color format for tab_color, offset semantics for move). It also explains the enum values and provides clear definitions for file_path and sheet_name, exceeding what the schema titles alone offer.

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 it manages sheets within a workbook and enumerates all supported actions (rename, delete, copy, hide/unhide, set tab color, move order). This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other aspects like worksheet structure or viewing.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a sheet-level operation is needed. It provides per-action prerequisites and constraints, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The lack of exclusions or alternative tool names keeps it just short of a 5.

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