Create Sheet

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

The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It mentions the dual behavior (create vs duplicate) but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or details about duplication (e.g., whether formatting is copied). The annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, but the description fails to elaborate on important behavioral nuances.

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 a single sentence, but it is cluttered with an inline Python-style signature that disrupts readability. The action is front-loaded, but the parameter list is not well-integrated. It lacks clear structure and could be improved by separating the high-level behavior from parameter details.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to use the parameters in practice, what happens when creating versus duplicating, or what the expected outcome is beyond the basic operation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only lists parameter names and types inline (e.g., 'user_google_email: str'), without explaining their meaning or relationships. For instance, the roles of 'sheet_name' and 'source_sheet_name' are not explicitly defined, leaving the agent to infer their purposes from the tool description.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Creates a new sheet or duplicates an existing sheet.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_spreadsheet (which creates a new spreadsheet) by focusing on sheets within an existing spreadsheet.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely functional and lacks any contextual direction for an agent deciding between this and similar tools.

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