freeze_panes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the effect of different cell inputs, including the unfreeze action. While it does not discuss edge cases (e.g., existing freeze replacement), the core behavior is well articulated.

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 extremely concise: two clear sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with illustrative examples. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool that manipulates view settings, the description covers the main behavior well. It explains the expected input format and the unfreeze action. It does not detail return values (no output schema) or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. A small gap is the lack of mention about replacing an existing freeze.

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 adds significant meaning for the 'cell' parameter, detailing how different values affect freezing/unfreezing. However, it does not explain 'sheet' or 'session_id', which are present in the schema. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters, but it only covers one partially.

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 ('Freeze rows above and columns left of the given cell') and uses concrete examples ('A2' freezes row 1; 'B1' freezes column A; 'B2' freezes both). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its many siblings (e.g., set_column_width, set_font) by specifying a unique spreadsheet operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to freeze specific rows/columns by cell reference) and how to unfreeze (omit cell or pass 'A1'). However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches, though given the tool's specificity, that is less critical.

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