colab_notebook_edit_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious side effect: 'Clears that cell's stale outputs.' That is valuable behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or behavior when the cell id/index is not found, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. The side-effect disclosure is placed last where it belongs.

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. The description covers purpose and the output-clearing side effect, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage it omits permissions, error behavior, and how `path` scopes the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `cell` ('an id or an index') and gestures at `cell_type` ('optionally its type'), but `path` and `source` receive no explanation beyond their names. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('a cell's source'), which cleanly distinguishes it from add_cell, delete_cell, and move_cell by implication. It does not explicitly name a sibling or draw the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like add_cell (for new cells) or run_cell. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'replace', which the calibration treats as no real guidance.

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