google-sheets-mcp

by richmcpharlin

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Despite the large number of tools, each has a clearly defined purpose. Overlaps exist (e.g., multiple formatting tools) but descriptions effectively differentiate them. The high volume may cause selection difficulty, but names and descriptions are distinct enough.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., clear_range, delete_sheet). A few deviations like 'batch_update_advanced' and 'autofit' break the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
83 tools is excessive for most use cases. While it aims to cover the full Sheets API, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's selection space. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple chart creation tools). A trimmed set of 20-30 would be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the Google Sheets API surface: CRUD on sheets, ranges, cells, formatting, charts, pivot tables, data validation, filtering, and more. The inclusion of batch_update_advanced ensures even rare operations are accessible. No obvious gaps for typical spreadsheet tasks.
Average 3/5 across 83 of 83 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether updates are destructive, what happens to existing data, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to construct the table object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'using a Sheets API Table object' but does not explain the 'table' parameter, 'fields', or 'spreadsheet_id' semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a table' which is vague and almost tautological with the tool name. It does not specify what kind of table (e.g., Google Sheets table) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_table' or 'build_table'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions randomization without disclosing destructive nature, reversibility, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but under-specified; lacks front-loading and structure for a tool with two required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex mutation operation, the description is far from adequate for an agent to understand behavior and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema description coverage; the tool's parameters (spreadsheet_id, range) are not explained in the description, leaving agents to infer their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool randomizes row order within an A1 range, distinguishing it from sorting or insertion siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'add a filter view'. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, requirements, return values) or the nature of the operation (non-destructive? requires permissions?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse and lacks important details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 complex parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not help an agent understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (range, title, sort_specs, filter_specs, spreadsheet_id). The agent has no guidance on how to construct complex parameters like filter_specs or sort_specs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'add', the resource 'filter view', and the scope 'over an A1 range', which distinguishes it from siblings like update_filter_view and delete_filter_view. However, it does not differentiate from set_basic_filter or explain what a filter view is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_basic_filter or update_filter_view. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using a filter view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'update a slicer spec' without explaining mutation effects, idempotency, error conditions, or side effects. This is severely lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief. It lacks structure (e.g., sections for usage, parameters) and does not maximize information density without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and 0% schema coverage, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what a slicer spec is, what fields are updatable, or what the tool returns, making it insufficient for correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions) and the description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema types and names, leaving the agent without guidance on required values like spec structure or fields usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'slicer spec', and specifies identification by 'ID'. However, it lacks a title and does not differentiate from siblings like 'add_slicer' or 'delete_slicer', which reduces clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_slicer, delete_slicer). There are no prerequisites, context hints, or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without clarifying side effects, behavior when no filter exists, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a clear understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), but it sacrifices critical information for brevity. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or parameter roles, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what 'spreadsheet_id' and 'sheet' refer to, despite them being required. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clear the basic filter') and the target ('on a sheet'), distinguishing it from related tools like set_basic_filter. However, it could be more explicit about the effect (removing the filter) and is somewhat terse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_basic_filter or delete_filter_view. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a filter must exist) or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is very brief and does not disclose behavioral traits beyond deletion, such as whether it is permanent, what happens to data in the group, or any required permissions. With no annotations provided, this is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise (one sentence), it is too sparse to be useful. It does not earn its place because it adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the effect on the spreadsheet, the meaning of indices, or error handling. The agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters (spreadsheet_id, sheet, dimension, start_index, end_index). For example, 'dimension' is not explained (e.g., 'ROWS' or 'COLUMNS'), and the indices are not described. This leaves the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a row/column group,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_rows/delete_columns, which delete individual rows/columns. However, the term 'dimension group' is not further clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_rows, delete_columns, or update_dimension_group. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'delete'. It does not mention consequences (e.g., data loss), reversibility, permissions required, or side effects like breaking references. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it misses opportunities to add useful information without being verbose. It could include parameter details or usage notes while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks prerequisites, return value, and behavioral context. With no output schema, the AI cannot anticipate the result of deletion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain what table_id or spreadsheet_id represent. The schema only lists names and types, leaving the AI with no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'delete' and the resource 'table', with 'by ID' specifying the identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_rows, delete_columns, etc., but could clarify what constitutes a 'table' in this context (e.g., a structured table in Sheets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_rows, delete_range, or delete_chart. The description lacks context on when deleting a table is appropriate, leaving the AI to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Rename a sheet/tab.' It fails to disclose whether renaming is idempotent, any side effects on data or formulas, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise, but at the expense of essential information. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no guidance on usage, parameter semantics, or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent gets no clarification on what 'sheet' (name/ID?), 'new_title', or 'spreadsheet_id' mean beyond the schema property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a sheet/tab' uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (sheet/tab), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_sheet, delete_sheet, and duplicate_sheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when renaming via batch_update_advanced or using other sheet operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic action, omitting critical details such as whether setting a new filter replaces an existing one, if any data requirements exist, or the mutation's irreversibility. The lack of behavioral context leaves agents uncertain about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 9 words, but this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. While front-loaded, it does not fully explain the tool, making it minimally viable rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is severely incomplete. It fails to describe return values, error handling, or the scope of the operation (e.g., does it affect the entire sheet or a specific range?). Agents have insufficient context to use this tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no semantic meaning to any of the 4 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, agents have only parameter names (e.g., 'Range', 'Sort Specs') and types. No explanation of expected formats, structure of filter_specs or sort_specs, or relation to the 'basic filter' concept is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('basic filter') with a specific range format ('A1 range'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling filter tools like clear_basic_filter or add_filter_view, leaving some ambiguity about what 'basic filter' entails versus other filter types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_filter_view for complex filters). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the border is replaced or appended, whether the chart must exist, or any side effects. The term 'embedded object' is vague and could mislead.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not wasteful, but it is underspecified. A single sentence can be sufficient if it covers key points, but here it omits critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining expected outcomes or required context. It does not, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description fails to explain any parameter (e.g., color format, spreadsheet_id, chart_id). It adds no value beyond the schema itself, leaving the agent without guidance on input specifics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource as 'embedded object's border color'. Given the tool name 'set_chart_border', it is clear it refers to chart borders, though it could be more explicit. It distinguishes the basic action from siblings but does not specify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_chart or delete_chart. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation but omits critical details such as whether it overwrites existing rules, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, resulting in inadequate guidance for a tool with many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what data validation is, how to configure conditions, or what the parameters mean, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no information about parameters like condition_type, values, or strict. The lack of explanation forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('a data validation rule on an A1 range'). It is specific about the operation but does not differentiate from sibling tools like clear_data_validation, which could lead to confusion about when to use set vs clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clearing a rule or updating an existing one). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a mutation (replace) but does not clarify whether the operation replaces the entire rule or merges changes. With no annotations, the agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is too minimal to be considered structured. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, behavior, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions 'index' and provides no explanation for the other 9 parameters (e.g., spreadsheet_id, condition_type). This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'Replace' and identifies the resource as a conditional-format rule, and the index parameter is highlighted. However, it does not specify what properties can be modified beyond the index, limiting clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (add_conditional_format, delete_conditional_format). The description lacks any contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'collapse or expand' but does not disclose behavioral traits like effects on other groups, reversibility, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief for a tool with 6 required parameters and no other documentation, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how indices work, valid values for dimension, or the effect of collapsed. The tool's complexity demands much more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool's description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., start_index, end_index, dimension, collapsed). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool collapses or expands a row/column group, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_dimension_group or delete_dimension_group, which also deal with dimension groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The implied usage from the name and siblings is present, but explicit context, such as when to collapse versus expand or prerequisites, is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires authentication, if it modifies state, what happens on failure, or if it returns the new sheet ID.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it omits critical information about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how parameters affect the operation, leaving substantial gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It does not mention any parameters (spreadsheet_id, title, row_count, column_count) or their defaults, leaving the agent with only the parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a new sheet/tab to an existing spreadsheet. The verb 'add' and resource 'sheet/tab' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_spreadsheet (creates new spreadsheet) and delete_sheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., duplicate_sheet), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring write permissions or the spreadsheet existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral disclosure beyond the basic add operation. No annotations exist, so the description should cover side effects, permissions, or limitations, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single terse sentence. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters, failing to provide necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and 9 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a slicer is, how to configure it, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., 'filter_criteria', 'anchor_cell'). The agent receives no semantic help beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a slicer for a data range'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_slicer' and 'delete_slicer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_slicer), nor any prerequisites or contextual hints for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'copy' without mentioning side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief for a tool with 5 parameters and significant complexity. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the single sentence fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's functionality, prerequisites, or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter clarification. It does not explain formats, defaults, or expected values for paste_type, paste_orientation, or range notations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action (copy) and the resource (range) with a clear source and destination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cut_paste_range and read_range/write_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cut_paste_range or batch operations. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only adds index semantics. Does not disclose side effects (e.g., data shift, formatting impact, permissions) or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is brief but sacrifices clarity on multiple parameters. Could be restructured for better readability without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical details about half-open range, inherit_from_before default, and required parameter roles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only start_index and half-open indexing are explained; other parameters (sheet, end_index, spreadsheet_id, inherit_from_before) are not described. With 0% schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Insert rows before start_index' with index conventions. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_rows and append_rows, though could clarify the range meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_range, append_rows). No condition or recommended context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that sorting is an in-place mutation, potential side effects (e.g., changes to formulas or formatting), or required permissions. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise. However, it sacrifices informational content for brevity, making it borderline under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sorting in Sheets (multiple sort specs, possible data types), the description lacks completeness. No output schema, no annotations, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions SortSpec objects but does not explain their structure or how to construct them. The sort_specs parameter is an array of objects with additionalProperties: true, leaving ambiguity that the description does not resolve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sorts a range using the Sheets API SortSpec objects. It implies sorting functionality and distinguishes from sibling tools like sort_by which may have different behavior. However, it lacks specificity about the scope or variations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sort_by or manual sorting). No context about prerequisites or best practices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states the format applies when true but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting existing rules), parameter effects (bold, colors), and idempotency. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-sentence description is front-loaded with purpose, then explains key parameters. Concise with no wasted words. Could use more structure (e.g., list) but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Missing parameter explanations, return value, error conditions, and sibling differentiation. Does not fully equip an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains condition_type and values well (2 of 7 params), but ignores bold, range, text_color, spreadsheet_id, background_color. Only 28% of parameters are meaningfully described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a conditional-format rule to an A1 range, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_conditional_format, which lowers the score from 5 to 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., spreadsheet must exist), and no exclusions. It only explains condition types without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not describe what happens with invalid indices, overlapping groups, or authorization requirements. The description only states the basic operation without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but could be restructured to include more key details without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that grouping refers to creating expand/collapse outlines, does not clarify the half-open interval range, and does not specify valid values for dimension (e.g., 'ROWS' or 'COLUMNS').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds little meaning. It hints at start_index and end_index semantics ('zero-based, half-open range') but does not explain other parameters like dimension or sheet. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool groups rows or columns over a zero-based, half-open range, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_dimension_group and delete_dimension_group. However, it could be more explicit about creating collapsible groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the range must not already be grouped, or scenarios where update_dimension_group should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the creation action. It does not explain whether overwriting existing named ranges is allowed, what the response indicates, or any side effects, leaving the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is too sparse to be genuinely helpful. It earns its place but sacrifices necessary detail, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should clarify return behavior (e.g., returns the created range object or nothing). It does not address this, and for a mutation tool with three required params and no annotations, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not clarify that 'name' expects a valid identifier string or that 'range' must be an A1 notation like 'Sheet1!A1:C10'. The agent must infer or rely on external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'named range over an A1 range', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like update_named_range and delete_named_range. It directly conveys what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_named_range) and no prerequisites (e.g., spreadsheet existence). The agent receives no context for decision-making beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function but does not reveal side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tables, required permissions, error conditions). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this comes at the cost of omitting necessary details. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the concept of a 'Sheets table', parameter details, or return value, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'rows_properties', 'column_properties'). The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a Sheets table') and the target ('over an A1 range'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'update_table' and 'delete_table'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that rows are appended below existing data and explains value_input_option behaviors, but it does not disclose non-destructive nature, permission requirements, rate limits, or return value expectations. Missing critical behavioral context for a data-modifying operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the primary action and uses clear formatting for the value_input_option explanation. However, it could be tighter without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many siblings, the description should be more comprehensive. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid range, overlapping data), return values, and behavioral nuances. The tool modifies data but misses necessary caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to fully explain all parameters. It partially explains 'range' and 'value_input_option' but fails to describe the required 'values' parameter and the crucial 'spreadsheet_id'. The coverage is insufficient for an agent to confidently pass correct values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends rows after the last row in a given range. It distinguishes itself from siblings like append_columns_to_sheet and insert_rows, but does not explicitly differentiate from append_rows_to_sheet, and the phrase 'within/near' introduces slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how the range selects the table and that new rows go below existing data, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_range or insert_rows. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'detecting existing source data' but does not explain how detection works, what patterns are recognized, or whether the operation modifies cells (destructive). Lacks clarity on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise, and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not provide enough context for an AI to use the tool correctly or anticipate results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameter meaning. It only hints at 'range' via 'within an A1 range' but fails to describe 'spreadsheet_id' or 'use_alternate_series'. The AI cannot infer how to use parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an autofill operation within an A1 range by detecting source data. It uses a specific verb ('auto_fill') and resource ('range'), distinguishing it from siblings like copy_range or write_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., copy_range, fill series, or manual write). Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states it reads ranges, implying non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose permissions, limits, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it omits necessary parameter details, making it too minimal for a 3-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description only hints at return format. It fails to explain parameter usage, A1 notation, or rendering options, leaving the agent underinformed for a batch read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to parameters. It mentions A1 ranges but does not explain spreadsheet_id, ranges array format, or value_render_option.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads several A1 ranges at once and specifies the return format as JSON with valueRanges. This distinguishes it from single-range reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like read_range, nor when not to use it. The description lacks context about batch operations vs single reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a destructive action but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It could be more informative without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the number of sibling tools and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or error scenarios, which are important for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'chart or other embedded object', and specifies 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, update, or move charts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_table or delete_conditional_format. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It states the action is deletion, implying destructiveness, but provides no details on reversibility, permissions, side effects, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of missing critical information. Adequate for clarity but insufficient for completeness, resulting in mediocre conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with no descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Agent lacks information on expected behavior, errors, and how it relates to sibling named range operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It mentions 'by ID' for named_range_id but does not explain spreadsheet_id or any constraints (e.g., format, required existence).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'named range' with identifier 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_named_range or delete_table by specifying the exact action and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_named_range or clear_range. No prerequisites, error handling, or context about what happens if the named range does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', implying a destructive action, but does not mention permanence, side effects, or required permissions. For a delete operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, making it concise. However, it could be restructured to front-load key information without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should provide at least a basic explanation of parameters and behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with minimal actionable context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds little value beyond parameter names. It vaguely mentions 'by embedded object ID', but does not clarify that 'slicer_id' is the ID of the slicer and 'spreadsheet_id' identifies the parent spreadsheet.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a slicer') and the resource ('slicer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_chart or delete_table. However, the phrase 'by embedded object ID' is slightly misleading because the parameter is named 'slicer_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_table, delete_chart). No context on prerequisites, when not to use, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions shifting but lacks details on the scope of insertion (entire rows/columns vs. range only), impact on formulas, or prerequisites. No annotations exist to fill the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. Front-loads the action. Could be more detailed but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, 3 parameters, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to cover prerequisites, side effects, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. It mentions 'range' and 'shift by ROWS or COLUMNS', but doesn't explain spreadsheet_id or the exact format of the range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'insert cells' and the resource 'A1 range', with additional behavior 'shifting existing cells by ROWS or COLUMNS'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like insert_rows or insert_columns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_rows, insert_columns, or write_range). The description only states what it does, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions zero-based indexing, but does not disclose whether the move is destructive, what happens to formulas, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the effect, return value, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'destination_index' and zero-based indexing, ignoring 'start_index', 'end_index', 'dimension', 'sheet', and 'spreadsheet_id'. The description adds minimal value over parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (move rows or columns) and the target index, but doesn't specify that it moves a range defined by start_index and end_index. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cut_paste_range' but lacks detail on what exactly is moved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'cut_paste_range' or 'move_chart'. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only mentions 'paste delimited text/HTML' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting cells, expanding sheet), authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide sufficient behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, many siblings), the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain return values, parsing behavior, or what happens when data doesn't match delimiters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'data' and 'start_cell' but does not explain 'html', 'paste_type', or 'delimiter' beyond implicit context. The agent would need to infer parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it pastes delimited text/HTML starting at a single cell, which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like write_range that write raw data, though it could be more precise about parsing behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'text_to_columns' or 'write_range'. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility but only mentions 'using a Sheets API ProtectedRange object', omitting behavioral details like error handling, permission requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 10-word sentence, which is concise but not sufficiently informative for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description lacks crucial context about the protected_range structure, partial updates, and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for parameters ('fields', 'spreadsheet_id', 'protected_range'), leaving their meaning entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'protected range', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_protected_range' and 'delete_protected_range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an existing protected range), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the ID is invalid, whether deletion is permanent, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. While it is concise, it fails to provide necessary details, making it less useful than a balanced description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error handling, or prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, the description should cover these aspects but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. The phrase 'by ID' is vague and does not explain what the IDs represent or how to obtain them, leaving the agent with no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a protected range by ID' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (protected range), and the identifier method (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_protected_range and update_protected_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use vs alternatives. The implied usage is clear from the name, but missing context like prerequisites or suggestions for alternative tools such as update_protected_range.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action but does not mention whether modification is destructive, if it affects only text or also formulas, or any side effects like formatting changes. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function with no unnecessary words or filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not mention return type, error conditions, or whether the operation is synchronous. Given the tool's complexity (modifying cell data), a more complete description is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (range and spreadsheet_id) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description adds no explanation beyond the schema. The description does not clarify the format or constraints of the parameters, such as what A1 notation means or required authentication context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'trim' and the resource 'whitespace in each cell in an A1 range', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings that might also modify cell content, such as 'find_replace' or 'write_range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that 'find_replace' could also handle whitespace cleanup, or that this tool is specifically for whitespace trimming only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the verb 'update' and the API object type. It does not explain whether the update is a full replacement or partial, what permissions are needed, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a complex nested parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return value, the expected structure of banded_range, or how fields affects the update. An agent would lack crucial context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'BandedRange object' for the banded_range parameter but does not explain the required structure or the optional 'fields' parameter. spreadsheet_id is obvious from naming, but not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (banding) and distinguishes from sibling 'add_banding' and 'delete_banding'. However, it does not explain what 'banding' is (e.g., alternating row colors), which may be unclear to an agent unfamiliar with Sheets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_banding, delete_banding). There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., banding must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites existing banding, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The agent gets no information beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. However, it may be too concise given the lack of annotations; a bit more context could be added without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not cover what the tool returns or how the optional properties affect behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'A1 range' without explaining the row_properties and column_properties parameters. The agent cannot infer how to configure the banding style from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add alternating-color banding' and the target 'A1 range'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_banding and delete_banding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_banding) or what prerequisites might exist. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states columns are appended empty, but omits details like whether existing data is affected, if there are limits on column count, or if the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core action. However, given the lack of detail, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the score. It is concise but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, three required parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about parameter types (e.g., sheet name vs ID), the meaning of 'length', and expected return values. This could lead to incorrect use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The parameter names (spreadsheet_id, sheet, length) are not elaborated, leaving ambiguity about expected formats or units. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: append empty columns to the end of a sheet. It uses a specific verb (append) and resource (columns to sheet), making it easy to understand what the tool does. Among siblings like insert_columns and delete_columns, this tool is uniquely identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_columns or other column operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'empty rows' but doesn't clarify default values, formatting, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient to understand side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise, but minimalism comes at the cost of omitted details. It is not verbose, but could benefit from additional context without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (three required params, sibling tools like 'append_rows' and 'insert_rows', no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and usage scenarios, making it insufficient for informed selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameters. While 'spreadsheet_id' and 'sheet' are somewhat inferable, 'length' could be ambiguous (number of rows? rows vs columns?). No example or clarification is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'append empty rows' and the target 'to the end of a sheet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'append_rows' (which appends data) and 'insert_rows' (which inserts at a position). The verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_rows' or 'insert_rows'. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states the action but does not mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The tool modifies dimensions, which is a write operation, but the description does not indicate this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Extremely concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (auto-fitting a range of rows/columns) and no output schema, the description lacks details like allowed dimension values, error handling, and comparison with sibling 'auto_fit'. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to 'start_index' and 'end_index' by explaining they are zero-based and half-open, but does not clarify 'sheet', 'dimension' (expected values like 'ROWS'/'COLUMNS'), or 'spreadsheet_id'. Schema coverage is 0%, so more detail would be needed for a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'auto-fit' and resource 'columns or rows', and adds specificity with 'zero-based, half-open range'. It distinguishes from sibling 'auto_fit' by specifying a range, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_fit' or 'set_dimension_size'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether only values are cleared, if formatting is affected, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral details beyond basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. No wasted words or jargon. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to specify ranges, expected behavior (e.g., if a range is empty), or any prerequisites. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. The description does not explain 'spreadsheet_id' or the format of the 'ranges' array (A1 notation). Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (clear values) and resource (multiple A1 ranges in a spreadsheet). It implies batching but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'clear_range', which clears a single range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in one call' suggests efficiency for multiple ranges, providing implicit guidance to use this tool when needing to clear several ranges. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions applying style, freezing header, banding, autofitting, and number formats, but omits critical details: the structure of the 'rows' parameter, whether existing data at the anchor is overwritten, the effect on the spreadsheet (except preview mode), and what happens if the headers array length mismatches rows. The missing explanation of 'rows' is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, with a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the omission of key parameters like rows and headers means it is not as efficient as it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains anchor, style, preview, and number_formats but ignores the crucial 'rows' and 'headers' parameters, which are required. It also does not describe the return value or confirm the action when not in preview mode. Overall, the agent would lack essential information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides examples for anchor (Sheet1!A1), lists valid options for style (clean/financial/report-header/input), explains preview behavior, and gives a number_formats example. However, it fails to explain the 'rows' and 'headers' parameters, which are central to the tool's function. The boolean parameters autofit, banding, freeze_header are mentioned as behaviors but not explicitly linked to their parameter names, causing potential confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a titled table and formats it in one shot. It specifies the verb 'write' and resource 'titled table', making the main purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'add_table' which might also create a table, though the one-shot formatting aspect distinguishes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_table followed by apply_style_preset or format_cells. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which situations are best suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool creates a pivot table, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing data, permission requirements, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured—for instance, grouping parameter details or adding bullet points. Given the conciseness, it scores high but not perfect due to lack of organization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters (3 required), open-ended array schemas, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter usage, the Sheets API shapes referenced, or the expected behavior and return value. This is a significant gap for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that 'rows', 'columns', 'values', and 'filter_specs' use Sheets API shapes, but does not explain the expected structure or provide examples. Required parameters like 'spreadsheet_id', 'source_range', and 'destination_cell' have no description at all. The added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'pivot table' with a location 'at a destination cell'. This uniquely identifies the tool's action among siblings, which include many data manipulation and formatting tools but no other pivot table creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'build_table', 'sort_range'). The description does not mention prerequisites, suitability, or when not to use it. This omission reduces clarity for the agent in selecting the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses index conventions but fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, impacts formulas, or requires permissions. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded action. Could be slightly more detailed (e.g., one more sentence on behavior) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion operation with 4 required params and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing side effects, return values, and scope of deletion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies start_index and end_index as zero-based and half-open, but provides no meaning for 'spreadsheet_id' or 'sheet', which are critical. Insufficient for 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete columns' with specific verb and resource, and adds precision about zero-based and half-open indices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_rows'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_table', 'clear_range'), or prerequisites like whether columns must exist. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Delete a filter view by ID.' Does not disclose permanence, ownership requirements, or side effects. Adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a 2-param tool. While concise, it lacks necessary detail, making it only adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a filter view is, how to obtain the ID, or that deletion is irreversible. More context is needed for a delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description only mentions 'by ID,' hinting at filter_view_id but does not mention spreadsheet_id or explain its role. Both parameters are required but not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete a filter view by ID.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'filter view' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'add_filter_view' and 'update_filter_view' since this is the delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, contexts for deletion, or when not to use it. Siblings for add/update are present but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses allowed kind values and range format, but no annotations are present, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on side effects, error handling, permissions, or revertibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains parameters. No unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded. Minor improvement could be listing values more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. Lacks information on return values, error cases, or comparative guidance among many sibling formatting tools. Needs more context for effective selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for 'kind' (lists allowed values) and 'range' (A1 or natural refs). However, 'spreadsheet' parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its format (ID vs URL).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Apply a number format to a range', which is a clear verb-resource pair. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on number formats, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like format_cells.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like format_cells or other formatting tools. No context on prerequisites or appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the indexing but omits important details like whether existing data shifts, what happens to formulas or formatting, and whether the operation is destructive. The effect of the 'end_index' parameter on the insertion is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the core purpose and indexing detail. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be more structured by listing parameters or adding context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the effect of 'end_index', or the 'inherit_from_before' parameter, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'start_index' parameter's zero-based half-open semantics but fails to describe 'end_index' (likely the number of columns to insert) or 'inherit_from_before'. The addition is partial but helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert columns') and the location ('before start_index'), and explains the zero-based half-open indexing. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'append_columns_to_sheet' or 'delete_columns', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'append_columns_to_sheet' or 'insert_rows'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether merging overwrites data, affects formatting, or works only with non-empty cells. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover these, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the key parameter. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details like what happens to cell content during merge, the return value, and the exact format required for the range parameter. A more comprehensive description is needed for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by listing the merge_type enum options, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). However, it provides no additional meaning for range or spreadsheet_id beyond their names. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Merge cells in an A1 range,' which specifies the action and resource. The merge_type options are explained, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like unmerge_cells, though the name itself distinguishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., format_cells, set_borders) or any prerequisites. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not explain behavioral traits like whether overlay positioning is absolute or relative, or any side effects on other elements. As a mutation tool, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain coordinate conventions, overlapping behavior, or range limits, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool description adds no explanation for parameters like anchor_cell, offset_x/y_pixels, or units. The agent gets no help understanding parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves and/or resizes a chart using overlay positioning. It provides a specific verb-resource pair (move/resize a chart) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_chart or create_chart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_chart for other modifications, create_chart for new charts). No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not explain whether the original column is replaced or preserved, what delimiter types are supported (beyond schema defaults), or any side effects like data loss. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but lacks essential detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but it is too brief to be considered efficient—it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and only two required parameters (spreadsheet_id, source_range), the description fails to explain the default delimiter behavior, error conditions, or the resulting range location. Completeness is inadequate for a tool with multiple optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema property descriptions have 0% coverage, so the description should add meaning to parameters. However, it only mentions 'single-column range', omitting details about the delimiter, delimiter_type, and how source_range is interpreted. The description adds no value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Split a single-column range into multiple columns' uses a specific verb (split) and resource (single-column range) and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like paste_delimited_data, which imports external delimited data rather than splitting an existing column.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as paste_delimited_data or sort_range. The description lacks context for preferred use cases or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update' without details on whether it merges or replaces, required permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. However, it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and nested parameters, the description lacks crucial context about return values, errors, or behavior. The tool is part of a large sibling set and needs more context for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description hints that the filter_view parameter should be a Sheets API FilterView object, but no details on its structure or the fields parameter. Does not adequately compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'filter view', and specifies it uses a Sheets API FilterView object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_filter_view or delete_filter_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_filter_view, set_basic_filter). No prerequisites or context about existing filter views mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update' but does not specify if it is destructive, authorization requirements, or error handling for non-existent ranges.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure or additional details. It is functional but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain required identifiers or the effect of null parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description mentions 'name and/or range' but does not explain the required 'spreadsheet_id' and 'named_range_id' or the optional nature of 'name' and 'range'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'update' and resource 'named range', clearly stating what can be changed: 'name and/or range'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_named_range' and 'delete_named_range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or differentiate from similar operations like adding or deleting named ranges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes a destructive action but provides no additional context about effects, authorization requirements, or error handling. Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility but adds no behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise. However, it may be too terse for a 2-param tool. Still, it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. Missing: return value, error scenarios, prerequisite steps (e.g., must have valid IDs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by ID' without clarifying which parameter is the ID. Both parameters (spreadsheet_id, banded_range_id) are required, but the description adds no meaning or format guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (Delete) on the resource (banding) using an identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_banding and update_banding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use. The context of 'by ID' implies that the agent must have a banded_range_id, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Clear data validation' without disclosing side effects (e.g., does it affect other formatting?), reversibility, or error conditions. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is almost too minimal; a bit more structure (e.g., listing parameters explicitly) would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (clear validation) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the return value or confirm success, and it could mention that only validation is cleared, not cell values. Among many siblings, some context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, it does not specify that 'range' should be in A1 notation or that 'spreadsheet_id' is the ID from the URL.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear data validation') and the resource ('an A1 range'). The verb is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_data_validation' (which sets) and 'clear_range' (which clears cell content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that data validation must exist) or contrast with similar tools like 'clear_range' (which clears both values and validation) or 'batch_clear'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It implies mutation ('Remove') but does not detail side effects such as whether the operation is undoable, if it preserves original order, or how it handles empty rows or headers. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the core functionality and optional parameter, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a long list of sibling tools, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what constitutes a duplicate (e.g., entire row or selected columns), whether the first or last occurrence is kept, or any performance implications. This leaves the agent underinformed for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by explaining 'comparison_columns' can limit comparison to specific columns, but does not explain default behavior (e.g., comparing all columns) or the meaning of 'spreadsheet_id' and 'range' beyond what is obvious from the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('duplicate rows from a range'), and the optional capability ('optionally comparing only column indexes'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_rows or clear_range by focusing specifically on duplicate removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for data manipulation (e.g., sort_range, clear_range, delete_rows), an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate or what the alternatives are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It fails to disclose side effects, error conditions, permissions, or behavior when no merged cells are found, which is critical for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for parameters is 0%. The description only clarifies that 'range' is in A1 notation, but does not describe 'spreadsheet_id' or add meaning beyond the schema's type. Minimal value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (unmerge), resource (any merged cells), and scope (overlapping an A1 range). It effectively distinguishes from its sibling 'merge_cells'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the important behavior of USER_ENTERED option evaluating formulas, which is a key risk. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether the write is destructive (overwrites existing data), required authentication scopes, or effects on existing data not in the range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two sentences for the main action and a brief paragraph for the parameter option. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the spreadsheet_id format, range notation (A1), or values array structure. For a mutation tool with many siblings, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the optional 'value_input_option' parameter, explaining RAW vs USER_ENTERED. The required parameters (spreadsheet_id, range, values) are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Write' and the resource '2D array of values to an A1 range', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly mention that the write operation overwrites existing data, which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by explaining the value_input_option and warning about USER_ENTERED evaluating formulas with external requests. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like batch_write or read_range, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals the default value for warning_only, which is already in the schema. It fails to disclose prerequisite permissions, what protection entails, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—only one sentence. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details about other parameters and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the editors, description, and even the range format beyond 'A1 range', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only explains the range and implicitly the warning only parameter (via default). The editors and description parameters are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: protect an A1 range. It specifies the default behavior (warning-only), which helps distinguish it from related tools like update_protected_range or delete_protected_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the default protection type but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor does it reference alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation, omitting details such as what happens if the rule does not exist, permissions required, side effects on cell formatting, or return value. The minimal information does not fully inform the agent of behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return behavior, error conditions, and any potential side effects. More context is needed for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by sheet and index' but does not elaborate on the meaning or expected format of the three parameters. For example, 'index' could be an ordinal or rule ID, and 'sheet' could be name or ID. The description adds little beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('conditional-format rule'), and the means ('by sheet and index'). It is concise and effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'add_conditional_format' and 'update_conditional_format'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The usage is implied by its name and description, but lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the original sheet is affected, permissions required, or the return value. It does not disclose side effects beyond duplication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, covering the essential action and optional behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse given the lack of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter info. It does not address return values, prerequisites, or potential errors, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that new_title and insert_index are optional, but does not clarify the required 'sheet' parameter or 'spreadsheet_id'. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a sheet/tab' with optional parameters for new title and index. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add_sheet or rename_sheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_range, add_sheet). The description does not provide context for preferred scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'replace' without disclosing behavior such as whether the spec is fully replaced or merged, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide enough context. An agent would lack guidance on constructing the chart_spec or understanding the operation's return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (chart_id, chart_spec, spreadsheet_id). It only loosely mentions 'chart's spec' but does not explain what the spec object should contain or how to use the other required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Replace a chart's spec' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from move_chart, guiding the agent away from using this tool for move/resize operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear alternative tool (move_chart) for moving or resizing, but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-use context for other sibling tools like create_chart_from_spec or delete_chart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden. It explains index semantics but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., row shifts), destructive nature, or required permissions. Minimal transparency for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (10 words), front-loading the key behavioral detail (index semantics). Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only 4 required parameters. The description omits important context like row shift behavior, error conditions, and whether deletion is permanent. Incomplete for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only clarifies start_index and end_index (zero-based, half-open). Sheet and spreadsheet_id are not explained beyond their schema titles, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (rows), with concise details on index semantics (zero-based and half-open). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete columns, sheets, or ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (deleting rows by index range) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_range or delete_columns. No when-not-to-use or preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' but does not disclose that the operation is irreversible, what happens to data, whether it is synchronous, or any required authentication. A destructive tool should explicitly warn about permanence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks critical details like irreversibility warning and return value. For a deletion tool, more context is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'sheet' can be a name or numeric ID, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the 'spreadsheet_id' parameter is not explained, and no format details are provided for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'sheet/tab', and specifies the identifiers ('name or numeric sheetId'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_sheet, rename_sheet, and other deletion tools (delete_table, delete_chart, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clear_range to empty a sheet without deleting it). No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites like required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether formulas are updated, case sensitivity defaults, or if the operation is destructive beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying the core action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits return behavior, side effects (e.g., number of replacements), and prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at 'range' and 'all_sheets'. It does not explain parameters like match_case, search_by_regex, include_formulas, or match_entire_cell, leaving much to the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'find and replace' and resource 'text in one range or all sheets', uniquely distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at scope options (one range or all sheets) but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or which alternatives (e.g., write_range, batch_update) might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the first row is treated as a header and not sorted, but omits details about side effects, stability, case sensitivity, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences plus a bullet point. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (sorting a spreadsheet range) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error scenarios, and how to specify the spreadsheet ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'column' (header name or letter) and 'order' (asc/desc), but does not clarify the format of 'range' or 'spreadsheet'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sorts a range by a column identified by header name or letter. It is specific but does not distinguish it from the sibling 'sort_range', which may have different sorting logic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the order parameter options (asc/desc) and the header assumption, providing some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sort_range'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the zero-based, half-open index notation and the dimension parameter options (COLUMNS/ROWS), adding behavioral detail beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using two sentences with a clear note format for parameter details. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core action is explained, but the description lacks usage guidelines and full parameter coverage. Given 6 required parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies dimension and start/end indices but omits explanations for spreadsheet_id, sheet, and pixel_size, which are only partially inferable. This leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb "Set" and the resource "fixed pixel size for a band of columns or rows," making the tool's purpose very clear. It distinguishes from siblings like auto_resize_dimensions which automatically sizes dimensions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_resize_dimensions or freeze. It only explains the parameters, not the context of use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes what each preset does but lacks information on mutation behavior, such as whether existing formatting is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool modifying spreadsheet content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, front-loads the core action, and efficiently lists presets using backticks. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required params, no output schema, and exists among many sibling tools, the description adequately explains the presets and range format but does not cover return values, error conditions, or how it interacts with other formatting tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It explains the 'preset' parameter by listing options with details, and clarifies 'range' accepts A1 or natural refs. However, the 'spreadsheet' parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses clear verb 'apply' with specific object 'named style preset to a range' and lists the available presets with their details. It distinguishes from sibling formatting tools by focusing on presets rather than individual formatting options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for applying predefined styles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like format_cells or set_borders. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses chart types, range constraints, and default anchor cell, but lacks warnings about side effects, permissions, or behavior when overlapping data. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (5 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It logically lists chart types then range specifications. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., chart ID). It covers creation aspects but omits return value, error conditions, and the fact that the chart is embedded on the specified sheet. Incomplete for a tool with 18 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'chart_type' (lists valid values), 'domain_range' and 'series_ranges' (single row/column, sheet prefix), and 'anchor_cell' default. However, 18 parameters exist; many like 'pie_hole', 'header_count', 'stacked_type' are left unexplained. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create an embedded chart') and the resource ('from existing sheet data'). It specifies the source and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_chart_from_spec' and 'update_chart'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating embedded charts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'create_chart_from_spec'). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Create' but does not mention what the tool returns, whether it modifies the spreadsheet immediately, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing charts). Missing critical behavioral details for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words, efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, return value, and behavioral context beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'chart_spec' as a full API object but does not explain other parameters like 'sheet', 'anchor_cell', dimensions, or offsets. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but lacking explicit context for an AI.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'create' and resource 'embedded chart from a full Sheets API ChartSpec object'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'create_chart' by specifying it's for complex chart types not covered there.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for histogram, scorecard, bubble, candlestick, waterfall, treemap, org, or other chart specs not covered by create_chart'. This implicitly tells when not to use, but lacks prerequisites or explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates that cutting removes the source range and pastes it elsewhere, but does not detail effects on formatting, formulas, or error conditions (e.g., overlapping ranges).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool mutates data, has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits details on paste_type options, input formats, and potential side effects, leaving agents underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation of parameters like paste_type, source_range format, or destination_cell format. Only a minimal hint that destination_cell is the start point is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cut a range and paste it') and the resource ('range', 'destination cell'). It distinguishes cut from sibling tools like copy_range or write_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_range or move_rows_or_columns. It implies a move operation but lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions applying color/text/bold but does not clarify if it adds a persistent conditional format, overwrites existing formatting, or any side effects. Details on permissions or rate limits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses two short paragraphs, front-loads the key action, and lists examples efficiently. No redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description explains the main functionality but omits return value, persistence of formatting, and effect on existing cell styles. It adequately covers core usage but lacks completeness for nuanced behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining 'condition' with examples, noting 'range' accepts A1 or natural refs, and mentioning default color. However, it does not fully describe 'spreadsheet', 'text_color', or 'bold' semantics beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Conditionally highlight cells from a natural predicate,' specifying the verb and resource. Examples of conditions distinguish it from sibling tools like 'add_conditional_format' or 'format_cells', which use rule-based or direct formatting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a natural predicate is available but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_conditional_format' or 'format_cells'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the deletion and shift behavior but omits side effects (e.g., formatting, data validation, irreversibility), prerequisites (e.g., sheet existence, permissions), and error conditions. For a destructive operation, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, followed by the key behavioral detail. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, few params), the description covers the essential behavior for correct invocation. It explains the range type, the shift dimension, and the action. It lacks details on error handling or return values, but these are less critical for a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains shift_dimension by mentioning 'ROWS or COLUMNS', clarifying its valid values. For 'range', it adds 'A1' notation context. However, 'spreadsheet_id' remains unexplained. Overall, it partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource 'cells in an A1 range', and the behavioral detail 'shifting remaining cells by ROWS or COLUMNS'. This distinguishes it from siblings like clear_range (no shift) and delete_rows/delete_columns (remove entire rows/columns, not a range).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to delete a range and shift cells, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it (e.g., use clear_range to clear without shifting, or delete_rows to remove entire rows). Given the large number of siblings, explicit 'when to use' and 'when not to use' would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of operation (all columns vs. specific columns), but does not state whether it is destructive (e.g., overwrites manual widths) or what the behavior is for empty cells. Adequate but could add more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second details target usage. No superfluous text. Could be improved by briefly mentioning the spreadsheet parameter, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and target usage. However, it lacks details on the spreadsheet parameter, return value, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple operation but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'target' parameter and its two possible formats, but does not explain the 'spreadsheet' parameter at all. Partial compensation for one parameter leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Auto-fit column widths to their contents'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_resize_dimensions (which might handle rows too) and set_dimension_size (which sets fixed sizes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the target parameter: if a sheet name, it fits all columns; if an A1 range like Sheet1!A:D, it fits only those columns. This provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like auto_resize_dimensions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the row is bold and defaults to sum, and allows override. However, it does not mention edge cases like invalid table_range or what happens if headers are missing, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states primary purpose, second adds crucial detail. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description explains main behavior and 'functions' but omits important context like how to identify the table, assumption about first column, or error handling. Moderate completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'functions' parameter (keyed by header name, with examples) but provides no extra info for 'spreadsheet' or 'table_range' beyond their names. This partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends a bold totals row beneath a table, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_rows or update_table. The verb 'append' and resource 'totals row' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains default behavior (sums all columns except first) and how to override per column via 'functions'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the usage context is clear from the example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description explains how to set borders using style and edge parameters, and that NONE clears borders. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or full side effects (e.g., whether existing borders are fully replaced), but covers core behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with only three sentences that front-load the purpose immediately. Every sentence adds useful detail without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential functionality but lacks detail on parameters like color and the exact result format. It is adequate for simple use but leaves gaps for advanced scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining style enum, outer edges, and inner borders. However, it omits spreadsheet_id, range, color, and the specific effect of setting boolean flags for top/bottom/left/right.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets borders on an A1 range, specifying the resource (range) and action (set borders). It distinguishes from siblings like format_cells or set_chart_border by focusing exclusively on borders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about style and edge parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., format_cells) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses the API method ('batchUpdate') and data shape, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing values), permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with a clear, front-loaded purpose. The example is embedded efficiently, providing essential context without extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch write tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical data format and operation scope. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., sheet existence) or return behavior, but overall is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by detailing the 'data' parameter with a concrete example of the ValueRange shape. However, it adds no extra meaning for 'spreadsheet_id' or 'value_input_option' beyond schema titles/defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Write values to multiple ranges' and the resource 'values batchUpdate call'. It differentiates from single-range writes like 'write_range' by emphasizing 'multiple ranges'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for batch updates but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., 'write_range' for single range). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that formatting is preserved, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention return values or side effects, but the operation is simple enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple clear operation, the description covers the essential distinction. However, without usage guidelines or parameter details, an agent might need additional context to differentiate from siblings. The lack of output schema is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for 'range' by specifying 'A1 range', but does not explain 'spreadsheet_id'. Partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool clears only values in an A1 range and preserves formatting, which is a specific and valuable distinction from similar tools like delete_range or write_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for clearing data while keeping formatting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_range or batch_clear. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains what the tool returns (dimensions, headers, sample rows, tables/charts) and implies it is a read-only operation by stating it 'returns' data. No annotations are provided, but the description itself adequately conveys the non-destructive nature. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence gives a high-level summary, and the second provides specific return details and usage context. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return data (per sheet: dimensions, frozen rows/cols, column headers with inferred types, sample rows, tables/charts). It also provides usage context ('Use this first'). For a tool with three parameters, the description is fairly complete, though more detail on optional parameters would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the required 'spreadsheet' parameter by stating it accepts 'a spreadsheet ID or a full Google Sheets URL'. However, the optional parameters 'sheets' and 'sample_rows' are not explained in detail; only the default for 'sample_rows' is implied ('5'). With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter documentation would be expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a snapshot of spreadsheet structure (dimensions, frozen rows/cols, column headers with inferred types, sample rows, tables/charts). It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'accepted') and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_spreadsheet_info', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Use this first to ground natural requests like "the Revenue column" before calling other tools.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it (as an initial step). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the unfreezing behavior with 0 and unchanged behavior with None, but fails to mention permissions, rate limits, or constraints like sheet bounds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two highly efficient sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return value details, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains rows and columns parameters (0 for unfreeze, None for unchanged) but does not explain spreadsheet_id or sheet, relying on default understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool freezes rows and columns of a sheet, using specific verb 'freeze' and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from other sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (to freeze rows/columns) and includes special values (0 to unfreeze, None to keep unchanged). However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools, though no freeze siblings exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implicitly describes a read-only operation by listing returned data, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or require no special permissions. This is adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the overall purpose, and the second details the return values and provides a usage hint. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, sheet details). It also provides a usage hint. It is complete for its scope, though it could mention that the tool is read-only and safe to call repeatedly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter spreadsheet_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on its format or constraints, but the parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose. Baseline score for a simple parameter with no added semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a spreadsheet's title, URL, and sheet list, including detailed per-sheet attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending it as a first step to discover sheet names and sizes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises 'Use this first to discover sheet names and sizes,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Clearly describes the return format ({"range", "values"}) and the value_render_option enum, adding behavioral detail beyond the schema. No side effects or auth info needed for a read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three lines cover purpose, parameter detail, and return format. No filler; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers most relevant aspects for a simple read tool: range format, value render options, and output structure. Missing explanation for spreadsheet_id, but overall complete given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning for 'range' with an example and explains 'value_render_option' options, but does not clarify 'spreadsheet_id' (ID vs URL, required context). With 0% schema coverage, more parameter help expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read cell values') and the resource ('from an A1 range'), with an example format that distinguishes this read tool from sibling write/clear tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for reading cell values, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like batch_read, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses allowlisting, blocking of lifecycle requests, and limit of 50 requests. However, it does not describe error handling or response format, which are gaps given the lack of output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, constraints, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers purpose and constraints well but lacks parameter details and return value information. It is adequate but incomplete for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain individual parameters (requests, spreadsheet_id, response_ranges, include_spreadsheet_in_response). Only briefly mentions that each request must contain one allowed kind, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs raw Sheets API batchUpdate requests, and differentiates from typed tools by noting 'Prefer the typed tools when one exists; use this for advanced API coverage.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides constraints: requests must contain exactly one allowed kind, data-source lifecycle requests are blocked, max 50 requests, and advice to prefer typed tools. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that only passed arguments are modified, implying non-destructive behavior for unspecified properties. It details valid values for color, alignment, wrap, and number format. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing formatting), authentication needs, rate limits, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear one-sentence summary followed by bullet points for parameter details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. The structure is easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main formatting categories well. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what is returned after formatting? success indicator?) and does not mention any preconditions like requiring a valid spreadsheet_id/range. Overall, it is reasonably complete for typical use but could be stronger.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining valid formats for colors (hex, named), enumerating alignment options, and detailing number format type/pattern with examples. However, it does not describe boolean parameters like bold, italic, underline, strikethrough, or font_size/font_family, leaving some parameters with only schema-provided titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies cell formatting to an A1 range, using the specific phrase 'Apply cell formatting to an A1 range.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_borders or merge_cells by focusing on font, color, alignment, and number format. The verb 'apply' and resource 'cell formatting' are specific and action-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for formatting cells but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_borders or apply_style_preset. It lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., range must exist), when not to use, or trade-offs. The sentence 'Only the arguments you pass change' offers some usage hint but no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It clearly states that the tool creates a new spreadsheet and returns the id and URL. This is sufficient for a creation tool, though it could mention irreversible nature or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core function and return value, the second explains the optional parameter. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters (both explained), no output schema but return values are described (id and URL). For a simple creation tool, this is complete enough. It doesn't mention error handling, but that's acceptable for basic tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining the 'title' parameter as the spreadsheet title and 'sheet_titles' as optional seed for multiple named sheets. It provides enough meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new spreadsheet and return its id and URL.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('spreadsheet'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all about modifying existing spreadsheets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on using the optional parameter 'sheet_titles' to seed multiple sheets. While it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool, there are no sibling tools for creating spreadsheets, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-sheets-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/richmcpharlin/google-sheets-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/richmcpharlin/google-sheets-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-sheets-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/richmcpharlin/google-sheets-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/richmcpharlin/google-sheets-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/richmcpharlin/google-sheets-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server