Set Range Values

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

Annotations only include a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation ('write') and how values are anchored (flat list as one row, list of lists as a block) plus the return value. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, whether existing data outside the written block is preserved, or error behavior for invalid workbook/sheet names. These are meaningful gaps.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no filler. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation concerns: optional workbook/sheet, values shape, anchoring, and return. It is missing edge-case details such as error handling, full-range addresses, and whether existing cells are overwritten. Given the minimal structured metadata, these additions would push it to a 5.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter individually: workbook/sheet with None defaults, range_address as a top-left cell with examples, and values with three acceptable formats and their layout semantics. This is rich and precise, leaving no ambiguity about the inputs.

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 'Write values into a cell or range in an open workbook,' which is a specific verb plus a clear resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_range_values (reads) and set_cell_formula (formulas). The scope is immediately clear and non-tautological.

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 context is explicit: this tool is for writing values, not reading or formatting. An agent can infer when to use it from the verb and resource. However, it does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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