update_title_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavior—only supplied fields are changed—but it does not clarify whether null values clear a field, what happens if no title block exists, or what side effects occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately compact, though it errs on the side of under-specification.

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 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on when to use add vs update and how to handle null fields.

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 coverage is 0% for 9 parameters, yet the description adds no meaning about individual fields. French names like 'indice' and 'dessine' are ambiguous without field-level explanations, so an agent cannot confidently map parameters to intent.

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 a specific action (change fields) and a specific resource (the sheet's title block), and the parenthetical 'only the given ones' conveys a partial-update scope. It is distinguishable from sibling add_title_block through the update-vs-add wording, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of add_title_block, whether a title block must already exist, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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