case_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that names are applied one per case starting at case 1 -- information the `names` schema field already states. It omits whether writes persist without `save`, what happens when the name count mismatches the case count, and any permission or process side effects (e.g. the `attach` live-edit mode).

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?

Two tight sentences with the read default stated first and the write condition second. No filler, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core capability.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the read/write duality but leaves return behavior (limit/default 200), persistence via `save`, and the live-edit implications of `attach` unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description's only parameter detail (one name per case from case 1) restates the `names` field description rather than adding new semantics.

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 states a specific verb pair (read/set) and resource (case names / text labels for spreadsheet rows), which is clear on its own. It implicitly separates this from siblings like rename_variables and value_labels by scoping to row labels, but it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

It establishes that omitting `names` means read-only and providing `names` means write, which is useful conditional guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use context relative to alternatives such as value_labels or rename_variables, and no prerequisites for the write path.

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