drive_sheets_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: dry_run defaults to false, previews need no lease, real writes need an operator allow rule and a lease, leases allow repeated writes until expiry, cancellation/timeout is not rollback, and refusals set is_error in tagged YAML output. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 the core purpose and the sibling alternative, then layers in lease/refusal semantics. Every sentence addresses a distinct concern with no obvious redundancy, though the lease/recovery detail is dense enough to border on sprawling for a single paragraph.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, lease lifecycle, stale-lease recovery, retry hazards, and the shape of the returned YAML. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds a worked example (spreadsheet_id, range, dry_run) and restates the dry_run default, but contributes little semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Clear cell values while retaining formatting'. It explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling by directing the agent to drive_sheets_write for replacement, so the boundary is unambiguous without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (clear vs. write), a dry-run-first recommendation, the lease prerequisite with drive_lease_acquire, the require_lease:false exception, and a recovery path for refused-lease-stale. Alternatives and preconditions are all named.

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