protect_range

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, but the description does not explain the behavioral implications (e.g., that protection restricts editing, that it may require permissions, or that it is reversible). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter list.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is concise and uses clear language, though the formatting could be slightly more compact.

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?

Despite covering parameters, the description lacks context about side effects (e.g., requiring permissions, interactions with other tools like clear_range), reversibility, or output details. The Returns line is generic ('Result of the protection operation'), providing no concrete information.

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 description comprehensively explains all 6 parameters in the Args section, providing semantic meaning (e.g., 'Omit to protect the entire sheet.'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter's purpose.

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 purpose: 'Protect a range or entire sheet from editing.' It uses a specific verb ('Protect') and identifies the resource ('range or entire sheet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clear_range or format_cells.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. It simply lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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