use_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions switching the active drawing cell, which implies state change, but does not disclose what happens to the previous active cell, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a state-modifying tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with 10 words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.

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 has an output schema (per context signals), the description need not explain return values. However, with only one required parameter and a state-changing operation, more context about prerequisites (e.g., cell must exist) and the effect on the user's session would improve completeness. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the 'name' parameter refers to an existing cell ('to an existing cell') and gives a concrete example ('e.g. the top cell'). While helpful, it does not specify name format, validation rules, or what constitutes a valid cell.

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 clearly states the action ('Switch') and the resource ('the active drawing cell'), and provides an example ('e.g. the top cell'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools in its core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_cell' or 'place_cell'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions. It simply states the function without context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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