google_sheets_rename_sheetRename a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet by providing the spreadsheet ID, sheet ID, and new title. Use this to update tab names programmatically.
Rename a tab (sheet) in a spreadsheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | New tab title. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| sheetId | Yes | Numeric sheet ID (from google_sheets_get metadata). | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Spreadsheet ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does 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 does not state that this is a mutating operation, whether permissions are needed, whether the rename is reversible, or what happens if the title collides with an existing tab. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 that names the action and target with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to count as a fully optimized definition.
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 four-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without behavioral context (permissions, reversibility, side effects). Rich schema coverage documents the inputs, but the description should do more to prepare an agent to call this correctly.
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 all four parameters (spreadsheetId, sheetId, title, account) are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('a tab (sheet) in a spreadsheet'), so an agent can distinguish it from google_sheets_add_sheet or google_sheets_delete_sheet. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation in the text, but the title and description together make the operation unambiguous.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no references to alternatives like google_sheets_add_sheet or google_sheets_delete_sheet. An agent must infer the usage context 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.