modify_sheet_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation operation ('can write, update, or clear values'), explains the clear_values behavior, and specifies the return type (confirmation message). However, it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or potential errors, which are relevant for a write tool.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately detailed without unnecessary fluff. The Args section is relatively long but necessary given the schema lacks descriptions. Could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear and organized.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, all parameter semantics, and return value. For a 6-param mutation tool with no annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks a few edge-case details (e.g., handling of value-size mismatches) but is otherwise complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with a detailed Args section. It explains each parameter's type, requirement, examples (e.g., range_name format), the special behavior of values (JSON string or 2D list, required unless clear_values=True), and defaults for value_input_option and clear_values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Modifies values in a specific range of a Google Sheet' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It further specifies that the tool can 'write, update, or clear values,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_sheet_values or format_sheet_range.

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 of what the tool does ('Modifies values... can write, update, or clear') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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