Replace the text in a specific table cell by specifying table, row, and column indexes, so live document content can be updated in place.
Write text into one table cell (replacing its content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | Zero-based row index. | |
| text | Yes | New cell text. | |
| column | Yes | Zero-based column index. | |
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. | |
| tableIndex | Yes | Zero-based table index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does carry the key behavioral fact that the write is destructive to the existing cell content (replacement, not append). It says nothing about permissions, whether the table expands, or what happens on out-of-range indices.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the replacement behavior, the most important detail, is stated inline rather than buried.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits failure behavior, range bounds semantics, and the batch alternative. Adequate, not complete.
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 all five parameters are self-documenting, including the zero-based indexing and the optional documentId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.
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 and resource: writes text into one table cell, and adds that existing content is replaced. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_table_cells (plural), so an agent must infer the singular-vs-batch split.
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 guidance about when to use this versus set_table_cells for multiple cells, or versus insert_table/read_table. The only usable cue is the implicit 'one cell' scope in the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.