sheets_add_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', which implies mutation, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the sheet is appended at the end), conflict handling for duplicate titles, or required permissions. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool that modifies a document.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the one-line description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual completeness because it does not mention when to use it, any alternative interactions, or what the agent should expect in terms of side effects. With no annotations, the description should have been slightly more detailed to be fully self-contained.

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%, but the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. The schema only lists 'spreadsheet_id' and 'title' with self-explanatory titles; the description adds no further meaning (e.g., that title becomes the new sheet's name or that spreadsheet_id references the parent). This leaves the agent with no added semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Add') on a specific resource ('new sheet/tab') within a 'spreadsheet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_create (which creates a spreadsheet) and sheets_delete_sheet (which removes a sheet). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing spreadsheet ID) or exclusions (e.g., use sheets_batch_update for adding multiple sheets at once). The lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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