sheets_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the append action but does not mention authentication requirements, reversibility, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the action and context. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and object, contains no redundant wording, and every word earns its place.

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?

Although this is a relatively simple append operation, the description lacks essential context for an agent, such as what 'range' should specify (e.g., a sheet name or a starting cell), the exact format of 'values' (array of arrays), and any constraints or edge cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the sparse parameter guidance.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. It mentions 'rows' which hints at the 'values' parameter, but gives no details on the expected structure of 'values' or the meaning of 'range' and 'spreadsheet_id'. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('rows to a Google Sheet'), and explicitly notes the action occurs 'after existing data,' which distinguishes it from similar operations like overwriting. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools such as sheets_write or sheets_clear.

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 implies the primary use case (adding new rows at the end of a sheet) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sheets_write or sheets_batch_update. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is limited to what can be inferred.

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