gws.sheets.write_range

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

Beyond annotations declaring destructiveHint, the description adds essential context: 'This tool irreversibly modifies user content' and instructs to confirm intent with the user, especially for documents not created in the session. It also explains the behavioral difference between USER_ENTERED and RAW input options.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by necessary parameter details and a safety warning. Each sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary 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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the core action, parameter semantics for the more complex fields, and includes a clear warning about irreversibility and user confirmation. It equips an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.

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%, providing baseline meaning for all parameters. The description adds extra value by detailing the structure of 'values' with an explicit example and clarifying that value_input_option defaults to 'USER_ENTERED'—information not fully present in the schema description.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Write values to a range in a Google Spreadsheet.' It distinguishes from the sibling read tool by the verb 'write' versus 'read,' and the example further clarifies the intended use.

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 that this is for writing values, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like gws.sheets.read_range or specify when-not-to-use. However, it does include a caution to confirm intent with the user, which offers some usage guidance.

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