Update Named Range

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation via 'Change' and states the return type, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the named range does not exist), prerequisites, or side effects. It implies the range must already exist, but that is not explicit.

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 well-structured: a single-line action, a list of arguments with brief explanations, and a returns line. It is concise with no fluff and front-loads the core purpose. The parameter list is clear and the return type is stated.

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 modification tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., missing named range, invalid address) and prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation mitigates the need. The ambiguity around required parameters is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter with definitions, defaults (workbook/sheet None), and an example for range_address. However, there is an inconsistency: the description marks 'name' as required while the schema marks it optional with a default of null. Also, range_address has a default 'A1' in the schema but the description does not mention that default. This reduces clarity.

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 clearly states the verb 'Change' and the resource 'an existing named range' and what changes (its reference). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_named_range, delete_named_range, and read_named_range by focusing on updating the definition rather than creating, deleting, or reading values.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies usage by saying 'existing named range to update', which suggests it is for modifying existing ranges rather than creating new ones. The distinction from write_named_range (which writes values to the referenced range) is implied but not spelled out, so there is some room for interpretation.

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