Write Named Range

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

Annotations only contain a title, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key traits: only the top-left cell is set, and returns a JSON confirmation. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as whether the named range must already exist, whether it overwrites existing values, and how errors are surfaced. Given no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 tightly structured: a clear opening statement, one critical caveat with routing to a sibling, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds distinct information.

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 relatively simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and return type. It also differentiates from the closest sibling. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't state whether the range must pre-exist or what happens on failure, but for a straightforward mutation this is a minor omission.

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?

The schema provides zero descriptions for its three parameters, yet the description's Args section explains each: workbook (with None meaning active workbook), name (required), and value (required). It also clarifies that name and value are required despite the schema suggesting defaults. This meaningfully compensates for 0% schema coverage, though the explanations remain brief and lack type details or constraints.

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 first sentence, 'Write a single value into a named range's top-left cell,' clearly identifies the action (write), the resource (named range), and the specific location (top-left cell). This precisely differentiates it from siblings like set_range_values (block writes) and read_named_range (read-only).

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 explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For multi-cell named ranges, only the top-left cell is set — use set_range_values with the range's address for block writes.' It also marks name and value as required in the Args section, giving clear usage prerequisites. No ambiguity remains about when to choose this tool over set_range_values.

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