modify_sheet_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can 'write, update, or clear values' and returns a 'confirmation message,' but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a successful modification. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with concise explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context like authentication, error cases, or output details. It's adequate for basic use but has gaps for robust agent invocation.

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 adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, required status, defaults, and interactions (e.g., 'values' is required unless 'clear_values=True'). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter usage clear.

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: 'Modifies values in a specific range of a Google Sheet - can write, update, or clear values.' It specifies the verb (modify), resource (Google Sheet values), and scope (specific range). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_sheet_values' or 'create_spreadsheet', though the distinction is implied through the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare it to sibling tools like 'read_sheet_values' for reading or 'create_spreadsheet' for creation, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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