update_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behaviors: updating source clears outputs, marks the cell and dependents stale, and `run='stale'` triggers execution. Missing details include behavior for rename-only updates and consequences of incorrect `expected_rev`.

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 concise: two sentences plus a code snippet. It front-loads the purpose and then details side effects and special parameters. Slightly verbose with the code snippet, but overall 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, side effects, and locking, but lacks details on error cases, return values (except for `run`), and the `path` parameter. Gaps remain for a full understanding.

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 description explains `expected_rev` and `run` parameters with specific behavior, but does not clarify `path` and `name` (required params) or `source` and `new_name` beyond the main purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates.

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's purpose: 'Replace a cell's source and/or rename it.' It identifies the specific verb (replace/rename) and resource (cell), and distinguishes from siblings like add_cell or remove_cell.

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 context on when to use the tool, such as requiring `expected_rev` for optimistic locking and the `run` parameter for immediate execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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