Insert Columns

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

The description discloses the core mutation behavior (inserting blank columns and shifting existing columns right) and states the return type as JSON confirmation. However, annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, and the description does not mention potential side effects like formula adjustments, formatting shifts, or permission requirements. It carries the behavioral burden adequately but not completely.

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 purpose, followed by a compact Args list and a Returns line. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers all parameters, the optional workbook/sheet behavior, required column semantics, and the return type. It could be more complete by noting the count default or describing the exact JSON confirmation shape, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: workbook, sheet, column, and count. It also clarifies that column is required and gives a concrete example ('B'), adding meaning far 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 states a specific action ('insert one or more blank columns') and the direct effect ('shifting existing columns right'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like insert_rows and delete_columns by naming the column operation and its directional impact.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: inserting blank columns before a specified column letter, with optional workbook/sheet scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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