rename_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely valuable non-obvious side effect: formula references to the old sheet name are NOT updated and will break. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as what the mutation requires from the file, and the presence of a `backup` parameter is never explained.

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 with a one-line purpose, followed by a high-priority warning and an Args section. Every element earns its place; core purpose and the critical caveat are not buried.

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 not be described. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the most important risk (broken formulas) but leaves the `backup` parameter unexplained and gives no indication of file/permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 usefully documents `path`, `old_name`, and `new_name` (including the "1-31 chars, valid Excel sheet name" constraint that the schema lacks), but it completely ignores the fourth parameter `backup`, leaving its semantics unexplained.

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 ("Rename") and resource ("an existing sheet"), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like create_sheet, copy_sheet, and delete_sheet. It is clear and non-tautological, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_sheet to preserve the old name, or create_sheet). The formula-breaking warning is a caveat about consequences, not a when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing rule, so usage guidance is largely absent.

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