Write to spreadsheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the crucial 'overwrites in place' behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits other behavioral context an agent may need, such as authentication requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to cells outside the written block.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the most decision-relevant nuance: overwriting rather than appending. Every word earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is serviceable but thin. All parameters are documented in the schema, but the description does not cover usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, auth context, or effect expectations beyond 'overwrites in place', leaving an agent with moderate but incomplete guidance.

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%, and all parameter descriptions are already meaningful: 'top-left cell', 'Rows of values to write', and the RAW/USER_ENTERED enum. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Write rows of values') and a specific resource (a spreadsheet range), with the additional scope qualifier 'starting at a range top-left cell'. The parenthetical '(overwrites in place)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_sheets_append without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 tool when writing values beginning at a top-left cell and overwriting existing content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as google_sheets_append, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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