drive_create_spreadsheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: creation of a new file, refusal when a name exists, never writing into existing spreadsheets, never sharing, and the valueInput interpretation (USER_ENTERED vs RAW). It also specifies limits (20 tabs, 20000 cells). It does not mention the response format or error handling beyond name conflict, but the described behaviors are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It opens with the core purpose, then explains the parameter structure and limits, then clarifies behavioral constraints and valueInput semantics. No filler or redundancy. It is well-organized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with five parameters and a nested sheet structure, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, the input format, the constraints (name conflict, limits), the value interpretation, and the non-actions (no sharing, no overwriting). While it doesn't describe the return value, there is no output schema, and the description provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the structure of the sheets array, the meaning of USER_ENTERED (parsing numbers/dates) and RAW (literal text), and the refusal behavior. This enriches parameter semantics and helps the agent construct correct inputs.

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 states a clear verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a new Google Sheet in a Drive folder'), and the key action ('fill its tabs in one call'). It also details the parameter structure and limits, making it distinct from sibling tools like drive_create_folder or drive_copy_file. This fully clarifies what the tool does and how it differs from others.

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 implicitly defines when to use it: for creating a new spreadsheet with content, and explicitly states it never writes into an existing spreadsheet, which signals not to use it for modifications. However, it does not name alternative tools for editing existing files, leaving the 'when not to use' somewhat implicit. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for new spreadsheet creation.

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