Add Number Validation

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

The description explains the core behavior and lists all condition types, which is helpful, but annotations are sparse (only a title). It does not disclose side effects such as whether existing validation on the range is overwritten, whether this is a write operation requiring save, or what happens to values already in the range.

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 structured efficiently: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Each parameter line adds practical meaning without redundancy, and the Returns line is minimal but useful since there is no output schema.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation details. It defines parameter semantics, required values, condition options, and the return type, leaving no critical gaps for calling the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter beyond the schema: workbook/sheet defaults, A1-style range_address, all allowed condition strings, value1 being required, value2 only for between/not_between, and decimal meaning 'whole numbers only'.

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 verb-resource statement: "Restrict a range to numbers matching a comparison." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like add_dropdown_validation and from general range operations.

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 implies the tool's use case through its purpose: restricting cells to numeric input that satisfies a comparison. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over alternatives such as add_dropdown_validation, get_validation, or remove_validation.

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