replace_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: batch atomicity, dry-run previews, numeric coercion, formula-injection protection, hazardous-workbook refusal, auto-backup, atomic save, and refusal while open in Excel. This is exemplary disclosure of side effects and edge-case behavior.

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 dense yet tightly packed, with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding meaningful behavioral detail. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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?

For a 13-parameter, mutation-heavy tool with no annotations and only a thin schema, this description covers the critical decision points and risks comprehensively. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required, and nothing essential for safe invocation is missing.

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, and it significantly does: match, look_in, dry_run, formulas, allow_loss, backup, and replace semantics are explained. A few parameters like sheet, location, match_case, and verify_com are not explicitly defined, preventing a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('find-and-replace') and a clear resource ('workbook, sheet, or range'), with explicit matching modes and target scopes. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like find_cells (search only) or set_cells (direct writes).

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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool: match modes, look_in behavior, dry_run versus real run, and safety toggles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the operational guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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