style_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that styling is applied without resetting unmentioned properties ('Only the args you pass are applied'), which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee. It does not cover permissions, return value, or failure modes, but for a formatting operation these are less critical.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes either a parameter explanation, an example, or a critical behavioral caveat.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core styling parameters and the important partial-application behavior. It does not explicitly explain how sheet is selected or mention what the tool returns, but this is unlikely to prevent correct use for a styling operation.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameter names. It does this well: it explains size is in points, align's allowed values, and gives concrete number_format examples. It leaves sheet and doc_id implicit, but those are conventional identifiers and less likely to confuse.

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 names a concrete action ('Format') and a specific resource ('a cell range'), then enumerates the styling dimensions. This makes it immediately clear this is a formatting operation, distinct from sibling data-manipulation tools like set_cells or read_cells.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer style_cells over set_cells/read_cells, but 'Format a cell range' and 'Only the args you pass are applied' provide usable guidance for the typical styling use case. The partial-update note helps an agent know it does not need to specify every style property.

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