Batch update spreadsheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it sends raw requests and can mutate the spreadsheet (add/delete sheets, formatting), but it does not mention that this is a low-level passthrough that requires the caller to know the Sheets API format, that it can be destructive, or that it may fail if requests are invalid. The description is too thin to convey the risk and complexity of a raw batchUpdate endpoint.

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 is concise and front-loads the key verb and resource. It includes useful examples in parentheses. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 raw passthrough tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain that the tool is a low-level API passthrough, what the response looks like, or that the caller must construct valid Sheets API requests. An agent would need to know the Sheets API batchUpdate format to use this correctly, and the description doesn't warn about that.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds context that 'requests' are raw Sheets API batchUpdate requests, which is helpful, but it doesn't explain the structure of the request objects or the account parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Send raw Sheets batchUpdate requests') and resource ('spreadsheet'), and gives examples of what it can do ('add/delete sheets, formatting, etc.'). It is clear enough to distinguish from google_sheets_read/write/append, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: use this when you need raw Sheets API batchUpdate operations rather than simple read/write/append. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like google_sheets_write or google_sheets_batch_update (which doesn't exist in siblings, but google_slides_batch_update does). No exclusions or conditions are given.

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