modify_cell

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral context by stating the operation uses tracked changes (delete old, insert new). However, it omits details about required permissions, reversibility, document state, or whether the change is applied immediately. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but not fully.

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?

Highly concise: one sentence summarizing purpose, followed by a clean bulleted list of parameters. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy. The front-loaded structure allows quick comprehension.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., table must exist, document must be open) and potential side effects (e.g., tracking only if changes are enabled). It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage in description, the parameter list adds significant value beyond the schema: 'Table index (0-based)', 'Row index (0-based)', 'Col index (0-based)', 'New cell text', 'Author name for the revision.' This clarifies indexing, default author, and purpose, making the tool more usable.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Modify a table cell' is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_text or delete_table_row by focusing on cell modification with tracked changes. The addition of 'with tracked changes (delete old, insert new)' further clarifies the behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_text or insert_text. The description implies use for changing existing cell content, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as needing an open document or existing table.

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