Clear all values from a specified spreadsheet range while keeping existing formatting intact. Use it to reset cell contents without losing styles or layout.
Clears all values from a specified range while preserving formatting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | The A1 notation range to clear (e.g. Sheet1!A1:C10) | |
| spreadsheet_id | Yes | The ID of the spreadsheet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: formatting is preserved, i.e. only cell values are removed, not styling. It omits irreversibility/undo and permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the action, the target, and the preservation guarantee.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is cleared and what is retained. Minor omissions are error behavior on invalid/empty ranges and permission requirements, which limit it below 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 100%, so both required parameters (range as A1 notation, spreadsheet_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (clears) and resource (values in a range), and adds the differentiating detail that formatting is preserved, which separates it from write_range and delete_sheet. It does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 implies usage but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool for emptying a range versus sheets_write_range or sheets_delete_sheet on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.