set_sheet_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as requiring special permissions, side effects (e.g., sending notifications), failure modes, or the nature of responses. The schema hints at actions but the description adds no context about what the agent should expect beyond executing the operation.

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 short sentence with an emoji, making it very concise. However, it lacks substance—it is more of a title than a functional description. While it avoids verbosity, it is under-specified and does not fully earn its place. A well-crafted description balances brevity with informativeness; this leans too far toward brevity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects. The agent receives no guidance on interpreting results or handling edge cases (e.g., removing a non-existent permission). The minimal description leaves the agent under-equipped for reliable tool 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions in Japanese. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither clarifies parameter relationships nor explains default behaviors. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 is a short Japanese phrase meaning 'spreadsheet permission/sharing settings management'. It indicates the resource (permissions) and general domain, but lacks a specific verb. The tool's name and schema show multiple actions (add, remove, list), but the description does not explicitly state what the tool does. It is not a tautology, but it fails to clearly differentiate from sibling tools or specify the core functionality.

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 this tool, prerequisites (e.g., ownership), or scenarios where alternative tools would be more appropriate. With many sibling sheet tools, the absence of guidance forces the agent to infer usage from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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