write_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that values are written and shows the JSON format; it does not disclose whether the operation overwrites the entire range, how existing cell contents are affected, whether the range must already exist, or what happens on partial failure.

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 short, action-first, and includes a useful inline example. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the lack of a structured breakdown slightly reduces its navigability.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits critical operational context such as the meaning of all parameters, overwrite semantics, worksheet targeting, and expected return behavior, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 compensate. It explains values_json with a concrete example, but it does not clarify file_id, worksheet, or address semantics beyond their names. Most parameters remain under-documented, leaving an agent to guess required formats and relationships.

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 states a specific action ('Write values') and a resource ('a range'), which is clearly distinct from sibling read_range and other table-row tools. The inclusion of the values_json example reinforces intent, though 'range' is not further specified as worksheet/cell range.

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 guidance is provided about when to use write_range versus alternatives like append_table_row, update_table_row, or update_file. The description implies usage by naming the action, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools are preferred in other scenarios.

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