set_cell_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'tracks old and new values' and 'returns operation result with coordinates and data type', adding useful behavioral context beyond the basic 'set' action. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on formulas or data types), leaving gaps for a mutation 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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second adds behavioral context, and the third describes the return. No wasted words, though minor formatting could improve readability.

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's moderate complexity (cell mutation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits (tracking values), and return context, though it could benefit from more guidance on usage vs siblings or error scenarios.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Set value') and resource ('specific cell'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_cell_value' (read) and 'update_row' (row-level). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_column' or other cell-modifying tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage for cell-level updates with coordinate targeting, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'update_row', 'update_column', or 'replace_in_column'. It provides context (coordinate targeting) but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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