Insert rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that inserted rows are blank and that the index is 0-based, but it never states the key mutation effect – that existing rows are shifted down – nor any permission requirements, whether the sheet must already exist, or reversibility. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its location constraint are stated immediately. Nothing in it is redundant or padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and indexing convention, and the fully documented schema supplies the rest. It is minimally adequate but omits the insertion side effect (shifting existing rows) that an agent should know before calling it.

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 five parameters including startIndex and numRows. The description echoes the 0-based index convention and the 'blank rows' nature but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('insert blank rows into a sheet') plus the insertion point ('at a 0-based row index'), which clearly separates it from google_sheets_delete_rows, google_sheets_append, and google_sheets_write. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to insert rows versus appending data (google_sheets_append) or writing to a range (google_sheets_write), and no prerequisites or constraints are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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