rename_sheet

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

The description only says 'rename' which implies mutation, but no details about side effects, required permissions, or error handling. With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the old sheet doesn't exist or the new name is taken.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could include more structure, it is appropriately concise.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the main purpose. However, it lacks information about error conditions or what happens in edge cases (e.g., duplicate names, non-existent sheets). The absence of an output schema is somewhat compensated by the operation's simplicity, but more completeness would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already sufficiently describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('rename') and the resource ('existing sheet in Google Spreadsheet'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sheet or delete_sheet.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use rename_sheet versus alternatives like updating sheet properties or other operations. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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