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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those hints: `cells` is a partial map, specified columns upsert, unspecified columns remain unchanged, and `order` reorders the row.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds concrete information about update behavior without filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It covers partial updates and ordering, but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or whether unspecified `cells` truly means untouched values are preserved at the API level beyond the stated assurance.

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 carries the burden and does well for `cells` and `order`. It explains the partial-map and upsert semantics for `cells`, and the reordering behavior for `order`; `rowId` is implied by the tool context but not separately described.

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 specific verb and resource: update cells on a workspace row. It also identifies the supported fields (`cells`, `order`) and distinguishes the operation from create/list siblings by focusing on partial updates to an existing row.

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 update context is implied clearly by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `bulk_create_workspace_rows` or `create_workspace_row`. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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