editar_celdas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral trait — "los valores quedan como texto" (values are coerced to text) — but says nothing about overwriting existing content, behavior on out-of-range indices, permission requirements, or reversibility of the change.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the indexing clarifications in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical slightly buries the important index-discoverability hint.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. The cross-reference to leer_presentacion covers index discovery, but there is no statement of what happens on invalid rows/columns or whether the call replaces or appends within a cell.

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 only 50%, so the description has to compensate, and it does meaningfully: it defines the table index by cross-referencing leer_presentacion "con detalle" (which is how an agent discovers valid indices) and clarifies that fila and columna are 1-based, reinforcing the minimum:1 constraints.

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?

"Cambia celdas de una tabla existente" states a specific verb (cambia) and resource (celdas of an existing table), which is enough to distinguish it from table-creation siblings like tabla or tabla_estructura. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from text-editing tools such as poner_texto.

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 phrase "tabla existente" implies a prerequisite (the table must already exist), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of the sibling that creates tables, and no guidance on what to do if the target table is missing.

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