batch_update_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'atomic-ish' but does not clarify what that means operationally (e.g., partial failures, rollback behavior). It glosses over the force parameter's effect on cell limits and does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits.

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 concise: two lines of purpose followed by a structured list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and atomic-ish behavior. However, it lacks guidance on expected return values, error codes, and when to choose this tool over siblings like update_range. A small improvement would be to mention the dry_run output format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all five parameters in the Args section, including the structure of 'updates' (sheet, range, values) and the meaning of boolean flags (raw, dry_run, force). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 purpose: 'Write multiple ranges in one call (one API request, atomic-ish).' It uses a specific verb (write) and resource (multiple ranges), and the term 'atomic-ish' distinguishes it from siblings like update_range that likely handle single ranges.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_range, append_rows, or clear_range. The description mentions 'atomic-ish' but does not explain when atomicity is critical or when to avoid batch updates. Given 17 sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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