cell_update

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: updating a code cell clears its outputs and execution count. This adds transparency beyond the annotations, which are neutral. However, it does not mention other potential side effects or permanence.

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: three sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, a behavioral nuance, and a practical usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key side effect but omits explanation of the 'name' parameter and does not indicate the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect after invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only indirectly addresses 'cell_id' via the usage tip and mentions 'source' as content. The 'name' parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter required tool.

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 updates the source content of a cell, distinguishing it from siblings like cell_add or cell_execute. It also advises using notebook_get for cell IDs, reinforcing its specific purpose.

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 a clear context (update cell source) and a useful prerequisite (find cell IDs with notebook_get). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cell_add or cell_delete, but the purpose is distinct enough given the siblings list.

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