wps_word_write_cell

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing cell content is overwritten or appended, whether formatting is preserved, or what happens if the cell index is out of bounds. However, the basic write operation is clear.

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 very concise: one sentence that clearly states the action and object, plus an explicit note about indexing. Every word adds value, and no space is wasted.

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 (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description is brief and covers the basic action. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid table (e.g., must already exist in the Word document), or what the tool returns upon success or failure. With no output schema, the description could have included behavior on errors or confirmation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (table_index, row, col, text). The schema already states that offsets start at 1 and that text is the string to write. The description adds a brief note about table_index starting at 1, which is redundant with the schema. The description does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 writes text to a cell of a table, and specifies that the table_index starts at 1. It effectively differentiates from siblings like wps_word_create_table (which creates tables) and wps_word_read_tables (which reads tables).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wps_wpp_write_table_cell (which writes to presentation table cells) or wps_et_write_range (which writes to spreadsheet cells). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the table must already exist.

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