Set Cell Alignment

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

The description only states the action (set alignment) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible, required permissions, error conditions for invalid indices, or that the cell must exist. Since annotations provide no beyond title, the description should carry the burden, but it fails to do so.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain expected behavior, return values, or common failure modes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to parameters, but it does not. It fails to explain valid values for 'horizontal' and 'vertical' (though defaults are provided in the schema), nor does it clarify the meaning of indexes. The agent gets no additional guidance beyond parameter names.

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 tool sets text alignment for a specific table cell, which distinguishes it from tools that align entire tables (e.g., set_table_alignment_all). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar cell formatting tools like format_table_cell_text or set_table_cell_padding, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that for aligning all cells in a table, one should use set_table_alignment_all. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or conditions.

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