Clear Range

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals risk, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond it: clear_formatting chooses between Range.ClearContents and Range.Clear, revealing that formatting may also be reset. It also notes the return value is JSON confirmation, which is helpful since no output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The Args block is minimal but complete, and the Returns line adds necessary confirmation about the response format. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 straightforward destructive tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, the formatting behavior, and the return type. Combined with destructiveHint, it gives an agent enough information to invoke and understand the tool safely.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning on its own. It does: workbook/sheet active defaults are explained, range_address is given with an A1-style example, and clear_formatting is described in terms of what gets reset. All four parameters are effectively documented.

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 and resource: 'Clear cell contents from a range'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_rows, delete_columns, and clear_conditional_format_rules, since it targets only a range's contents rather than structural changes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever cell contents in a range need clearing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'cell contents from a range' provides enough context to differentiate it from destructive row/column deletion and conditional-format clearing.

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