Create Google Spreadsheet

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) with potential external side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds value by detailing the return payload (spreadsheetId, title, spreadsheetUrl, sheets) and providing concrete examples. It doesn't contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of expected outcomes.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, then clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Examples. Every section serves a purpose with no fluff. The examples are concise and illustrative, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple create operation with two parameters, full schema coverage, informative annotations, and an inline return format, the description is complete. It covers the action, parameters, output structure, and example invocations, leaving no critical gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and adds example values, but it doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the primary explanation.

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 'Create a new Google Spreadsheet with optional sheet names.' This uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('spreadsheet'), and explicitly mentions the optional sheet names feature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_get_spreadsheet or sheets_update_values by focusing on the creation action.

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 makes it clear this is for creating a new spreadsheet, which is an obvious use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and title. No exclusions are stated, so it meets the criteria for 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).

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