protect_range

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

The description discloses key behaviors like the 'dry_run' option and 'warning_only' mode, but does not explain side effects such as overwriting existing protection, permissions required, or whether the changes are reversible. Without annotations, more detail is needed.

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, using a one-sentence summary followed by a structured bullet list of arguments. No fluff, but the bullet list could be slightly more integrated into the prose.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or error details). It covers parameters well but omits return value and error conditions, leaving the agent uncertain about results.

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?

Each parameter is explained with clear semantics that go beyond the schema: 'None = whole sheet' for range, 'Label shown in the Sheets UI' for description, 'Email addresses still allowed to edit' for editors. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Protect a range (or the whole sheet) from editing.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling editing tools like 'update_range' or 'set_basic_filter' by focusing on protection rather than data manipulation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or caveats, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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