clear_range

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the confirm requirement and dry_run functionality. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). Minor lack of detail on side effects like formatting, but acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and key parameters.

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 description covers the main functionality and critical parameters. It lacks explicit mention of behavior when confirm=false or potential errors, but the overall completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: item (as spreadsheet), a1_range (via example), confirm (required), and dry_run (returns values before clearing). This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the action (clear all values), the resource (A1 range of a spreadsheet), and provides an example range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_sheet or append_rows.

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 tool is for destructive clearing and requires confirm=true, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings.

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