编辑单元格(API)

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

描述说明了编辑会落值，commit=false 保持编辑态；但未提及其他副作用（如覆盖原值、触发事件、校验失败行为），在仅有 readOnlyHint=false 的情况下仍有少量信息缺口。

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?

两句话简洁传达核心用途、前置条件和替代流程，没有冗余信息，结构清晰。

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?

在兄弟工具较多的上下文中，足以区分 vtable_edit_cell 与其他 VTable 操作，并给出替代方案；但缺少坐标体系和 tab_id/table_index 的定位说明，未达到完全完整。

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 覆盖率仅 33%，描述只补充了 value 和 commit 的含义；col/row 未说明是否从 0 开始或针对哪个表格，tab_id/table_index 也完全未解释，参数语义不充分。

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?

明确描述通过 VTable editor 编辑单元格并落值，使用具体动词和资源；同时区分 API 级编辑与真实键入流程，能够与 vtable_click_cell 等兄弟工具区分。

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?

说明前置条件（列配置了编辑器），并明确指出如需真实键入流程应改用 vtable_click_cell(double_click=True) + action_chain + press_key，给出了清晰的 when 和 when-not。

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