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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: AI values never overwrite what a person typed, linked, or quoted, and a token is required. The ambiguous phrase “needs proof to be optional” weakens the disclosure, but the key safety behavior is present and consistent 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and instruction format, with no wasted exposition. The final sentence about proof and a token is somewhat opaque and slightly disrupts an otherwise clear structure.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central instruction-setting behavior and human-data preservation. It omits important details such as whether changing the instruction recalculates existing cells, how choices interact with instructions, and what role slug plays.

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 description adds valuable meaning for the instruction parameter, including the brace syntax and an example like “Classify {Pitch} by genre.” However, it does not explain slug at all, and choices is left entirely to the schema despite only 50% schema description coverage.

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 specific action: configuring a column as an AI column, changing its instruction, or reverting it to a plain column. It is easy to distinguish from fill_ai_cells because it sets the instruction that governs future AI work rather than filling cells, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing the three modes of setting an instruction, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives such as fill_ai_cells or next_ai_cells. The phrase about needing a token is present, but the usage conditions remain only partially stated.

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