write_range

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.