spreadsheet_update_cell

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: a backup is created before the change, which is valuable for a mutating operation. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as overwrite semantics, confirmation behavior, or side effects beyond the backup.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and adds only the most important behavioral note. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is insufficient. The backup behavior is useful, but the definition still lacks enough detail for an agent to safely construct a call.

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 0% and all four required parameters (filename, sheet, cell, value) are undocumented. The description only references the cell being updated, providing no clarification of value formats, sheet naming, or filename expectations.

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 Portuguese description uses a specific verb ('Atualiza') and resource ('uma célula'), clearly indicating a single-cell update. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with read, create, append, and summarize operations, so an agent can easily identify when this tool applies.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it names no alternative tools or selection criteria. The only signal is the verb 'atualiza', which implies an update scenario, but this is inferential rather than stated guidance.

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