modify_sheet_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core operation, the clear_values behavior, and the confirmation return, but it does not explicitly mention side effects such as destructive overwrite, required edit permissions, or behavior when values are omitted outside the clear case. These are implied but not surfaced.

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 one-sentence summary, followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to parse parameter semantics quickly.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, defaults, conditional behavior, and the return type. It is slightly incomplete in not stating prerequisites such as edit access or range validity, but the parameter documentation and output schema leave little ambiguity for correct 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section fully compensates by explaining all six parameters. It documents requiredness, the conditional requirement for values, accepted formats for values, defaults for value_input_option and clear_values, and the meaning of each setting.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Modifies values in a specific range of a Google Sheet' and explicitly names the supported operations: write, update, or clear. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like read_sheet_values or format_sheet_range.

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 opening sentence provides strong context for when to use the tool: whenever sheet range values need to be written, updated, or cleared. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose statement is clear enough for an agent to select this over read/format siblings.

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