Update Spreadsheet Values

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains how RAW vs USER_ENTERED affect parsing (e.g., formulas and dates), and describes the return object (updatedRange, updatedCells, etc.). This gives a fuller picture of the mutation behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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: a one-sentence summary, then organized parameter details, a return value section, and concrete examples. Every section earns its place, and it remains clear and scannable despite its richness.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully explains the return object. It covers all parameters, provides examples for common cases (plain data and formulas), and explains the input options. For a mutation tool with moderate complexity, this is a highly complete description.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for values and explains the value_input_option enum in more depth (e.g., 'USER_ENTERED' parses formulas, dates work). This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Write cell values to a specific range in a Google Spreadsheet', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_append_values (which appends) and sheets_clear_values (which clears), and 'specific range' emphasizes the overwrite behavior.

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 clear context: use this tool to write/update a defined range. It explains the value_input_option semantics (e.g., formulas with USER_ENTERED) and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sheets_batch_update or sheets_append_values, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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