sheets_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that values are written, without mentioning overwrite semantics, range requirements, or consequences of the write. The example shows the values structure but not the operational behavior, which is a significant gap 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for an illustrative example. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, yet the description provides minimal context. It fails to address overwriting, range syntax, or how to identify the spreadsheet, which are essential for correct use. The example helps but does not make the description complete for a write operation.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'values' parameter with a 2D array example, which is helpful. However, it offers no explanation of 'spreadsheet_id' or 'range', leaving most parameters semantically undocumented beyond their 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 a specific action ('Write values') and resource ('a Google Sheet'), with a concrete example of the values format. It is not explicit about overwriting versus appending, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like sheets_append, but the verb 'write' is unambiguous enough to earn a 4.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use sheets_write instead of alternatives such as sheets_append or sheets_clear. There are no mentions of exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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