Set rich literal/field mark labels while preserving pane calculation context.
Set rich literal/field mark labels while preserving pane calculation context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runs | Yes | ||
| pane_index | No | ||
| worksheet_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, and 'preserving pane calculation context' is a useful side-effect hint, but the description omits permissions, overwrite behavior, reversibility, and what the runs actually do.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise structurally, though it is so terse that it withholds detail which would be useful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% input schema coverage, the description is too thin for an agent to call this tool correctly; it never explains the runs structure or when to use this tool versus its many siblings.
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%, so the description must compensate. 'literal/field' vaguely hints at label types, but it does not explain the required worksheet_name, the required runs array of objects, or the pane_index default, leaving all three parameters semantically undocumented.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('mark labels'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'rich literal/field' is jargon that obscures exactly what is being configured, and there is no differentiation from siblings like configure_custom_tooltip or set_worksheet_caption.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'while preserving pane calculation context' hints at a constraint but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over other label or worksheet configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.