numbers_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fully delivers. It discloses that untouched cells remain intact, that formulas are recalculated, that empty values clear cells, and that values starting with '=' are inserted as formulas. These are critical behavioral traits 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a practical example, then essential behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and the code block makes the parameter format immediately clear.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter syntax, side effects (formula recalculation, cell clearing), and non-destructive behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'path' as the .numbers file to modify, and 'cells' as A1-notation reference → value, with a concrete example and the special '=' formula rule. This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Write specific cells in an existing Numbers sheet, and save it') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes numbers_set from siblings like numbers_create (creating) and numbers_read (reading) by emphasizing 'existing sheet' and modification.

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 clear context for use: it modifies an existing .numbers file and explains why this goes through the app (to recalculate formulas). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, such as pointing to numbers_create for new files.

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