Import to Google Sheets

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world); the description adds real behavioral context — 'Google Drive automatically converts the source spreadsheet to native Google Sheets format, preserving rows, columns, sheets, and values.' It stops short of covering auth prerequisites or failure modes, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, conversion behavior, and delivery-channel guidance. The most important information (what it imports and where) is front-loaded, with no redundancy against the schema.

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 9-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and selection guidance in compact form. It could add one sentence on auth expectations (user_google_email is required) or where the resulting spreadsheet lands (folder_id defaults to 'root'), but those are already documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description pushes above it by explaining when to prefer file_path over base64_content/content and by framing base64_content as the channel for binary sources. The remaining parameters (folder_id, source_format, base64_sha256) are left to the already-detailed 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Imports a spreadsheet (XLSX, XLS, ODS, CSV, TSV) into Google Sheets format with automatic conversion.' The enumerated formats and explicit destination make it immediately distinguishable from the import_to_google_doc and import_to_google_slides siblings by target format.

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?

Provides actionable delivery-channel guidance: 'Binary sources may be passed directly as base64_content' and 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' It does not, however, say when to choose this over near-siblings (create_spreadsheet, import_to_google_doc, import_to_google_slides) or state exclusions.

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