copy_cell_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly notes that it mutates formatting and does not touch values, and it describes the return type ('dict: Summary of changed cells'). This gives essential behavioral context, though it could mention that the target range formatting is overwritten.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Notes). It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's operation, parameters, return value, and side effects. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the crucial note that values are not touched.

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 compensate. The Args section provides meaningful definitions for all four parameters (file_path, sheet_name, source_cell, target_range), adding clarity beyond raw parameter names. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Copy formatting'), the resource ('cell format'), and the scope ('from a single source cell to every cell in a target range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_range (copies values) and format_cells (applies formatting), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by indicating that it mutates formatting and does not touch values, implying it is for formatting-only copy operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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