sheets_write_range

Does 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 structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — notably it never says that existing cell contents in the target range are overwritten, which is the single most consequential trait of a range write.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is concise, though at the cost of omitting anything an agent might need beyond the bare action.

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 mutating write tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no mention of overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failures, the definition is thin. Annotations cover only the safety hints, leaving the description short of what an agent needs to call this confidently.

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 every parameter including the input_mode enum ('user_entered' vs 'raw') is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 (writes) and resource (values to a range in a Google Sheets spreadsheet), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings such as sheets_append_rows, sheets_write_multiple_ranges, or sheets_clear_range, so the agent gets no help distinguishing it from those.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over sheets_append_rows when adding rows versus overwriting a fixed range, nor when sheets_write_multiple_ranges is the better choice. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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