Protect a range in Google Sheets from editing. Optionally, allow edits but show a warning.
Protects a range from editing, optionally as a warning only
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | The A1 notation range to protect | |
| description | No | Description of why the range is protected | |
| warning_only | No | If true, shows a warning but still allows editing | |
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the warning-only behavioral mode, but says nothing about permission requirements, effect on existing editors, or whether protection can be removed.
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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional mode trailing. Zero waste, nothing to trim.
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?
All four parameters are documented via the schema and no output schema is needed for this mutation. However, for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage of permissions or reversibility, the description leaves notable behavioral gaps.
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 range, warning_only, description, and spreadsheet_id. The description's 'optionally as a warning only' reinforces the warning_only semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb (protects) and resource (range from editing), plus a meaningful variant (warning only). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool is about protection, so the intent 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, when to choose warning_only over full protection, or what preconditions exist (e.g., edit access needed). The 'optionally as a warning only' phrase hints at a mode but doesn't say when to pick it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.