append_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the append semantics ('Nothing is overwritten') and the parsing behavior of value_input_option, but says nothing about permissions/auth, what happens if the tab is missing, or error behavior. Partial but meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a tight per-argument list. No filler; the 'Args' block is efficient. Minor formatting roughness but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. What remains missing (auth requirements, failure modes) is minor for a straightforward append operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains spreadsheet_id ('long token from the URL'), sheet_name with an example, values ('same column order as the sheet'), and the USER_ENTERED vs RAW distinction. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (rows) with scope ('below the last used row of a tab'). The phrase 'Nothing is overwritten' implicitly contrasts it with write_range, though it never names the sibling. An agent can identify the operation, but the differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. The 'Nothing is overwritten' note implies a contrast with write_range but does not say to prefer that tool for overwriting. Usage context is only implied.

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