wps_et_set_conditional_format

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. It effectively conveys the tool's mutation behavior (modifying cell formatting) and covers all four operational modes, though it could add notes on scope (e.g., what happens to overlapping formats) or performance implications on large ranges. The description is transparent enough for safe use.

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, well-structured sentence with type-specific details separated by semicolons. It front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently conveys all operational modes and parameter relationships without repetition or wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, 4 modes), the description covers all types and key parameter combinations. The high schema coverage (100%) and lack of output schema reduce the need for return value documentation. It could add a note about the clear type's effect on existing formats or default values, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how parameters combine for each type (e.g., operator+value1[+value2]+fill_color/font_color for cell_value). This provides crucial semantic context that the schema's individual descriptions lack, particularly for conditional logic and color construction.

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 tool sets conditional formatting for WPS spreadsheets. It lists the four types (cell_value, color_scale, data_bar, clear) with specific formatting details for each, differentiating itself from sibling tools like wps_et_format_range and wps_et_clear_range, which handle general formatting or clearing without the conditional logic.

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 context on when to use each type (e.g., cell_value for comparisons, clear for removal). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though being the only conditional formatting tool in the list, this is less critical. The guidance is practical and sufficient for a well-informed agent.

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