Add a new tab to an existing Google Sheets spreadsheet by specifying its title, row count, and column count.
Creates a new sheet (tab) in an existing spreadsheet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The name for the new sheet | |
| row_count | No | Number of rows in the new sheet | |
| column_count | No | Number of columns in the new sheet | |
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what happens if the title already exists, whether existing sheets are affected, or whether the new sheet becomes active.
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, correctly sized for a simple create operation. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing wasteful is present.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but as a mutation with no output schema the description omits any hint of what the call returns or how the new sheet is identified afterward. Adequate but with a clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (spreadsheet_id, title, row_count, column_count) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as title-uniqueness rules or the default dimensions, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Creates) and resource (a new sheet/tab) plus the scope constraint (in an existing spreadsheet), and the '(tab)' gloss disambiguates from similarly named siblings like sheets_create_chart or sheets_create_named_range. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. sheets_delete_sheet or sheets_write_range on a new tab), and no prerequisites such as required spreadsheet permissions. The phrase 'existing spreadsheet' hints at one precondition but nothing more.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.