set_hyperlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: cell text is replaced by textToDisplay when provided, and passing address as null removes the hyperlink. However, it does not cover side effects like overwriting an existing hyperlink, required permissions, or the response format, leaving significant behavioral 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies text replacement behavior, and the third explains removal. No waste.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main behaviors (setting, text replacement, removal) but omits potential side effects such as overwriting an existing hyperlink. For a simple cell operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that textToDisplay replaces the cell text (a behavioral detail not present in the schema's parameter description). It also restates the null address removal, which is redundant but reinforces the parameter's semantics.

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 ('hyperlink on a cell'), including the optional fields address, display text, and tooltip. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like write_range or set_table_cell, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., writing a HYPERLINK formula or using other cell-editing tools). It only describes parameter behavior ('Pass address as null to remove') but offers no contextual usage rules or exclusions.

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