drive_sheets_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that rich-text runs are dropped (a destructive side effect), the lease/operator-allow-rule authorization model, that dry_run defaults to false, that 'refused-lease-stale' needs a fresh backup, that cancellation/timeout is not rollback, and that output is tagged YAML with is_error on failure. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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-loads the core action and alternatives, then packs examples, lease rules, and error handling. Every clause is actionable, but the lease/refusal detail runs long and reads as a dense single paragraph, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the lease lifecycle, failure modes, and the return format (tagged YAML, is_error on refusal). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete worked example (spreadsheet_id, range, values, dry_run) and reiterates the dry_run default, which clarifies how the parameters combine in practice, though it adds little about the semantics of lease/input/values_path beyond 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+side effect: 'Overwrite cell values in a Google Sheet, dropping rich-text runs.' It immediately distinguishes itself from drive_sheets_append (add rows) and drive_sheets_clear (empty values), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly names the two alternatives and their conditions, tells the agent to dry-run first ('previews need no lease'), and explains when a lease is required and how to acquire it. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and prerequisites are all present.

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