Append Spreadsheet Values

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by documenting the return object structure (spreadsheetId, tableRange, updates) and providing examples of value_input_option and insert_data_option semantics. This goes beyond the annotations and schema, offering insight into what the API returns and how options affect behavior.

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 well-structured with 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Examples' sections, making it scannable and readable. It is not overly long, but the Args section repeats schema documentation, which is slightly redundant. The front-loaded purpose sentence is clear and concise, and the example is illustrative without being excessive.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description provides a good amount of context: it includes a return schema, examples, and default values. It does not explicitly address error cases, authentication, or rate limits, but for this relatively straightforward append operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. However, it could have explicitly contrasted with sheets_update_values or other siblings to fully complete the picture.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section largely repeats the schema, though it does provide a concrete example ('Append rows: range="Sheet1!A:D", values=[["Alice", 30, "Engineer", "NYC"]]') which adds slight clarity. However, no new semantic information is introduced beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Append rows of data to the end of a table in a Google Spreadsheet', using a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_update_values or sheets_clear_values, which perform different operations. No ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 for appending rather than overwriting or updating, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of sibling tools. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer the use case, but the guidance dimension expects more direct comparison to other tools.

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