apply_conditional_formatting

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior for each rule type (e.g., default colors, operator list) and required parameters. However, it does not address whether existing rules are overwritten or appended, side effects, or authentication needs. Thus it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with two paragraphs and bullet points for rule types. It front-loads the main action and then elaborates on parameters. Each sentence adds value, though a slight reduction in phrasing could improve conciseness.

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 complexity (multiple rule types, 9 parameters) and no output schema, the description covers all rule types and their parameter dependencies. It lacks details on return values and error handling, but otherwise provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively by detailing 'rule_type' options and associating parameters like 'colors', 'operator', 'values', 'formula', 'fill_color', 'font_color' with specific rule types. It also provides defaults and formatting notes (e.g., hex/named colors). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 adds a conditional formatting rule to a range, specifying verb 'add' and resource 'conditional formatting rule'. It further distinguishes from siblings like 'set_fill_color' and 'format_as_table' by detailing rule types (color_scale, data_bar, cell_value, formula), making the purpose precise and distinct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_fill_color' or 'set_font'. The description explains rule types but does not mention prerequisites, context for choosing conditional formatting over direct formatting, or when not to use this tool.

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