update_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overwrites' implying destructive behavior (old content lost), but does not describe side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or return value. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation and a precondition. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what if cell doesn't exist), validation of content, or response behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by stating the precondition that the cell must already exist and is identified by cell ID. This constraint is not in the schema. For a simple two-parameter tool, this extra context is helpful.

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 action ('overwrites') and the resource ('contents of the cell'), and explicitly identifies the cell by ID. It differentiates from sibling tools like add_code_cell (creating) or delete_cell (removing) by focusing on updating an existing cell.

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 provides implicit usage context by stating the cell must already exist, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_cell (which might also modify a cell) or add_code_cell (for creating). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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