clear_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It partially delivers by disclosing what is destroyed (values) versus preserved (formatting, rows), but says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, or behavior on empty/merged cells, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

One sentence of behavior followed by two terse parameter notes; the effect is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 described, and the two required parameters are explained. The main gap is that a destructive tool with no annotations omits any note on permissions or reversibility.

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 carry the parameters, and it does: spreadsheet_id is explained as 'the long token from the spreadsheet URL' and a1_range is given a concrete format example. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema titles.

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 ('Clear the values in a range') and immediately scopes the effect by naming what survives ('leaving formatting and the rows in place'). This lets an agent distinguish it from write_range, which overwrites, without opening either schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The preservation clause strongly implies the use case (delete content while keeping layout) but the routing is left to inference.

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