Update Table Cell

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it replaces the entire cell contents rather than editing in place, and it preserves rich-text attributes and header bold formatting. It doesn't mention any failure modes such as out-of-range row/column indices, and the expectedRevision staleness check is left entirely to the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, and every clause (zero-based addressing, rich-text preservation, header bold preservation) carries distinct information. No filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the operation and its preservation guarantees. Remaining gaps are minor: out-of-bounds behavior and the concurrency/staleness contract are only in the schema.

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 row, column, text (including the LinkedPage delta pattern), workspaceId, and expectedRevision. The description only restates the zero-based addressing and rich-text preservation, adding no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Replace") with a precise resource (one cell in an AFFiNE table) and names the addressing scheme (zero-based row and column). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_block, update_database_row, and update_table_column_widths.

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?

Usage is implied by the precise operation scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_block or update_database_row, nor any prerequisite or when-not-to-use statement. An agent must infer the selection from the name and scope alone.

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