format_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '設定します' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this overwrites existing formatting, requires file write permissions, has side effects on other cells, or provides any confirmation/error response. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a formatting tool and front-loads the essential information (what formatting aspects are supported). Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with complex nested parameters (4 params with deep nesting) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for operational details, which is risky for a write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the three formatting aspects (font, fill, border) which map to the 'format' parameter's structure, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('設定します' - sets/configure) and the resource ('セルの書式' - cell formatting), specifying the three formatting aspects (font, fill, border). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'set_cell_value' or 'set_range_values' which handle content rather than formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential formatting alternatives that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing workbook), compare with sibling tools like 'set_range_values' for bulk formatting, or indicate when formatting vs content-setting tools are appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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