Set cell borders

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

Annotations already indicate mutability and destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that 'only the provided sides change' and that NONE removes a border. It also clarifies the default color, which is not obvious from the schema alone. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing necessary semantics: range positioning, side grouping, style options, non-destructive behavior, and color format. There is no filler or repetition of the input 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?

Given the rich input schema and annotations, the description covers the remaining conceptual gaps: what inner vs outer means, that only specified sides change, that at least one side is required, and how colors are specified. No output schema is present, but the tool's invocation semantics are sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by grouping top/bottom/left/right as outer edges, inner_horizontal/inner_vertical as internal grid lines, explaining the {style, color?} shape, and noting the default black color. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draws borders around and/or inside a grid range.' It clearly defines outer vs inner sides, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like format_cells, but the border-specific language is enough to identify its purpose.

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 clear operational context: it explains which parameters affect outer edges vs inner grid lines, states that only provided sides change, and requires at least one side. It does not name alternatives or spell out when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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