drive_sheets_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: dry_run defaults to false and previews need no lease, real writes need an operator allow rule and a lease, refused-lease-stale requires a fresh backup and can be cleared via omni-dev drive lease release, and cancellation/timeout is explicitly not rollback. It also states the output is complete tagged YAML with is_error on refusal.

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 purpose and the sibling routing, then behavior. The lease/stale-token passage is dense and somewhat sprawling, but each clause conveys actionable operational detail that no annotation supplies, so the length is largely justified.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety model (lease, allow rule, dry run), failure semantics (stale lease, cancellation not rollback), and return shape (tagged YAML, is_error). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete invocation example (spreadsheet_id, range, values, dry_run) showing how parameters combine, which is modest but real added value; the dry_run default it restates is already in the schema.

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 (append) and resource (rows after the table in a Google Sheet range) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling drive_sheets_write, which overwrites. An agent can select this over drive_sheets_write/clear/read without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('use drive_sheets_write to overwrite existing cells'), prescribes a dry-run-first workflow, and lays out the lease acquisition path with drive_lease_acquire plus the require_lease:false exception. When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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