autofit

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.