clear_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that rows/columns are preserved and gives the default polarity of values vs. styles, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or the existence of the schema's 'backup' parameter, leaving the safety profile of a destructive-style operation incomplete.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a tight per-argument list; no filler. The A1 example ('A1:D10') earns its place by clarifying the format. Slightly verbose in the per-arg prose but well organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the clearing semantics are reasonably covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, omitting the 'backup' parameter (and any note on reversibility) leaves an agent without enough to reason about risk before invoking it.

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, and it does for 5 of 6 parameters: path semantics (file or preloaded name, omittable when one file is configured), sheet, A1-style range format, and the defaults for clear_values (True) and clear_styles (False). The 'backup' parameter is entirely undocumented, which is the only material gap.

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?

States a specific verb (clear) and resource (cell values/styles within a range) and explicitly bounds scope with 'without deleting rows or columns,' which distinguishes it from delete_rows/delete_columns and insert/delete siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus the rest of the sheet-mutation tools.

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 'without deleting rows or columns' clause implies when this tool is preferred over delete_rows/delete_columns, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference from the scope statement.

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