Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set a formula' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the cell already has content, whether formulas are validated, or what the typical response looks like. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, error conditions, or what happens after the formula is set. Given the complexity of spreadsheet operations and the lack of structured safety/behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the tool's effects and limitations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'cell' and 'spreadsheet' which map to row/col and documentId parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints.

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 ('Set a formula') and target ('for a cell in a standalone spreadsheet'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.setCellFormula' or 'spreadsheet.setCell', which appear to have similar functions but potentially different scopes (sheet vs. 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related (e.g., 'sheet.setCellFormula', 'spreadsheet.setCell', 'spreadsheet.setData'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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