sheets_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explain whether formatting replaces or merges with existing formatting, what happens if optional parameters are omitted, or whether write permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and lists key capabilities. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is both concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention required parameters, return behavior, or how partial formatting updates are applied. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with examples. The description only lists parameter categories without adding additional meaning, such as how parameters interact or the effect of omitting them. It provides some mild reinforcement but doesn't exceed the schema's value.

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 tool applies formatting to a cell range and enumerates the formatting types (bold, italic, font size, background/text color, alignment, number format, wrap strategy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_read or sheets_write, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for formatting only, not for editing values, nor does it reference sibling tools like sheets_write. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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