write_cells

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that data is written, but does not mention that it overwrites the existing range, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it returns anything. This is insufficient 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it could have included more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does not explain the exact structure of 'values' or the format for 'range_name,' and it omits any return value information, leaving important context gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely refers to 'data' and 'specified range,' which map to values and range_name, but it does not clarify that values must be a 2D array or how the range should be formatted. This leaves crucial parameter details undocumented.

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 identifies the action ('Writes data') and the resource ('a specified range in a Google Sheet'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously differentiates it from siblings list_sheets and read_cells without needing to open the 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings. However, the verb 'writes' implies usage for writing data, which is a clear context. It lacks any discussion of when not to use it or which alternative to choose.

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