gws.sheets.clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent—no contradiction. It adds meaningful context: only values are removed while properties are preserved, and the cleared range is returned. This goes beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: core action, range-syntax clarification, precise behavioral scope, and a safety warning. No fluff, no restating of schema fields, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 mutating tool with rich annotations and a small parameter set, the description covers the essentials: exact behavior, preservation semantics, return value, and a safety note. The explicit return-value statement compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 per rubric the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that a bare sheet name like 'Sheet1' is valid range syntax and reinforces the A1 notation also present in the schema. It adds marginal convenience but doesn't substantially expand on parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Clear (empty) the values in a range of a Google Spreadsheet.' It further scopes the operation by stating only values are removed while formatting/data validation remain intact and no rows/columns are deleted. However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools like gws.sheets.write_range, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 instruction to 'Confirm intent with the user before calling it on documents you did not create in this session' provides explicit when-to-call and when-to-confirm guidance. This implies an exclusion context (avoid autonomous calls on user-owned sheets), though no sibling alternatives are named.

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