wps_wpp_write_table_cell

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 only states the basic action and the source of shape_index. It does not describe what happens if the cell already contains text (e.g., overwrite or append), whether the operation is reversible, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and then provides a key usage hint. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. It is concise and efficient.

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 that this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to mention default behavior when slide_index is omitted, behavior on out-of-bounds row/col, or whether the function overwrites or appends text. The note about shape_index is helpful but incomplete for a robust agent to use safely.

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% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds a note about shape_index being the return value of wps_wpp_add_table, but this is already stated in the schema description for that parameter. Thus the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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: '向幻灯片表格单元格写入文字' (write text to a slide table cell). It also specifies that the shape_index parameter comes from the return value of wps_wpp_add_table, which helps distinguish it as a follow-up operation. The tool name and sibling context confirm it's for WPP presentations, not Word or spreadsheet 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?

The description implies that this tool should be used after wps_wpp_add_table, since it mentions shape_index is taken from that tool's return value. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wps_word_write_cell or wps_et_write_cell, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the shape_index hint.

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