google_sheets_set_named_rangeDefine a named range over a Google Sheets grid region so formulas and scripts can reference cells by name instead of coordinates.
Create a named range over a grid region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the named range. | |
| range | Yes | Grid region the range covers. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| 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, yet it discloses nothing about permissions/account requirements, idempotency, what happens on a name collision, or whether existing ranges are affected. For a mutation tool this is a notable gap, though 'create' does convey the basic write nature.
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 wasted words; the verb and resource lead. It is terse but not redundant, though its brevity leaves behavioral and usage context unaddressed.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter deserves more than one sentence. Missing behavioral facts (name-collision behavior, auth/account role, reversibility) leave the agent without enough to call it confidently.
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 four parameters. The description's phrase 'over a grid region' only loosely restates the range parameter and adds no syntax, format, or boundary details beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Create a named range') over a 'grid region', which is clear and distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling google_sheets_get_named_ranges. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as google_sheets_get_named_ranges for listing existing named ranges. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.