create_named_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates named ranges but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if ranges persist across document edits, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and benefit. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 80% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral implications, or integration with sibling tools. For a creation tool with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.

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 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents (document_id, name, indices, tab_id). It mentions cross-referencing but doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage examples.

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 the tool creates named ranges for cross-referencing in documents, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'named range'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on range naming rather than document creation or text manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_named_range' or other range-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the benefit of named ranges (referencing by name instead of index) but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other document manipulation tools like 'insert_text' or 'delete_range'.

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