gws.sheets.append

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the INSERT_ROWS option, additive nature (never overwrites), default value_input_option behavior (parsing formulas/dates), and the ability to switch to RAW. This clarifies the tool's side effects without contradiction. It could go higher if it mentioned idempotency, but the existing context is strong.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with the core action, then explains key parameters and behavioral details, and ends with the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, covering all critical aspects without verbosity.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the core functionality, parameter behavior, safety profile, and return value. It lacks explicit discussion of error conditions (e.g., invalid range) or permission requirements, but given the annotations and simple schema, it is generally adequate. The main gap is not describing the exact structure of the returned range, but the description mentions it, which is sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it迫害 it clarifies the 'range' parameter as the table to append after, and explains the 'values' format and the effect of 'value_input_option'. However, these clarifications are not extensive; for example, it could detail the format of the returned range or clarify 'account' usage, but the baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 appends rows to a Google Spreadsheet, specifying the key operation ('Append rows') and the resource (Google Spreadsheet). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gws.sheets.write_range by emphasizing that it appends after a table without computing the next empty row, and explicitly says it never overwrites, which differentiates it from write_range and clear.

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 on when to use this tool: when you need to append rows without overwriting, and it explicitly mentions the INSERT_ROWS option and preservation of existing data. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., use write_range for overwriting) or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full exclusion guidance.

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