bw_update_query_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that all operations apply in one save, that remove_cell is refused while another formula references the cell, and that a reference cell is auto-created when an intersection lacks one. It omits any mention of permissions/locking or error behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and operations, and every clause is informative. Some operation enumeration and cross-references are lengthy, but there is little 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?

For a complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operations, addressing scheme, constraints (reference refusal, auto-creation), and transaction behavior. It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit guidance on sibling choice and error/permission context.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (operations, formula tree, member addressing). The description adds only marginal param meaning (addressing by description or id, members at any depth), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb (manage cell definitions) and resource (an existing BW Query with two structures, one per axis), then enumerates the exact operations supported. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bw_update_query_key_figures or bw_update_query_layout, which target different query objects.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (query must have two structures) and routes the agent to bw_get_query for listing existing cells to reference. It also notes the atomic single-save behavior. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over sibling update tools, so it isn't a full 5.

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