set_basic_filter

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.