add_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-execution, the behavior of cell_type (Markdown wrapped in mo.md(...)), and the semantics of after_cell_id (append if None). Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for a straightforward tool.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-like Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the key action. No redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, param semantics, and key behavioral traits. Could mention constraints or error cases, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained: notebook (path or port), code (content), after_cell_id (insert position), cell_type (with default and Markdown detail). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Add a new cell to a notebook without executing it', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It differentiates from sibling tools like edit_and_run_cell (which involves execution) and delete_cell (which removes cells).

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 explicitly notes that the tool adds without executing, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_and_run_cell. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or other sibling tools.

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