workiva_write_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the PUT-per-row mechanism, that formulas pass through as text, and that empty strings fill column gaps. It does not state whether writes overwrite existing values or mention auth/rate limits, but it reveals non-obvious implementation behavior that is valuable to an agent.

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 tightly structured: a one-line purpose, a brief API reference, a concise behavioral note about row grouping and formula handling, and an Args list. Every sentence adds information, and it is front-loaded with the verb+resource. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (write operation with three params), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves (grouped rows, empty strings), the origin of sheet_id, and parameter formats. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It is fully self-sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema offers zero descriptions, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It does so thoroughly: spreadsheet_id is 'The spreadsheet UUID', sheet_id is 'The sheet UUID (from workiva_spreadsheet_sheets)', and cells is described as '[{row, col, value}] with 0-based row/col'. This adds precise structural details that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Write values to cells via the v2026 values API.' This clearly identifies the resource (cells in a spreadsheet) and the operation (write). It distills it from siblings like workiva_read_cells and workiva_format_cells by focusing on the write operation, and the provided API endpoint further clarifies scope.

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 when to use this tool: when writing cell values, with details about how rows and gaps are handled. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when not to use' guidance, but the purpose is so direct that the usage context is unmistakable. Missing explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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