Modify Sheet Values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific 'clear values' behavior, which gives concrete meaning to the destructive hint. It doesn't warn that writing overwrites existing cell content in the range, but since the annotations carry the mutation/destruction burden, the description does not seriously underdeliver here.

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?

A single 17-word sentence that front-loads the main action ('Modifies values in a specific range of a Google Sheet') and completes with an efficient enumeration of modes. Zero filler; every part of the sentence 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?

Given an existing output schema, full parameter coverage in the schema, and annotations that disclose the destructive write profile, the description is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only gap is an explicit statement that writing overwrites existing values in the target range, though 'write/update' strongly implies this. This is a minor omission, not a blocking one.

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 100% — all 6 parameters (values, range_name, clear_values, spreadsheet_id, user_google_email, value_input_option) have their own descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already carries the semantic burden, which matches the baseline-3 rule.

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 states a specific verb ('Modifies') and a specific resource ('values in a specific range of a Google Sheet'), then enumerates the modes 'write, update, or clear values.' This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling read_sheet_values by its action semantics. However, no sibling is explicitly named or contrasted, so it stops short of a 5.

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 three modes (write, update, clear) imply when the tool should be used, and an agent can infer it is the write counterpart to read_sheet_values. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion like 'for reading use read_sheet_values instead,' and no mention of prerequisites such as the target sheet/tab needing to exist.

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