apple_numbers_write_range

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond that, the description adds real value: bounds are validated before writing, an application failure may leave PARTIAL changes (non-atomic), and the operation may autosave and sync. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Four terse, information-dense sentences front-loaded with the core action, then parameter conventions, then behavioral caveats. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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, 6-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, index conventions, null handling, formula gating, non-atomic failure, and autosave side effects. It omits how sheetName/tableName are resolved against the document, a minor gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the 1-based index convention for startRow/startColumn, that null in values clears a cell, and that allowFormulas must be true for formula strings. It leaves sheetName and tableName semantics undocumented, so it compensates partially rather than fully.

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 (write), resource (Numbers cells), and scope (rectangular grid, existing cells, 1-based indexes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling apple_numbers_read_range and the document-level apple_numbers_create.

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?

Implies prerequisites via 'existing Numbers cells' (the document/table must already exist) and notes formulas require allowFormulas:true, but names no alternative (e.g. read_range) and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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