table_setCellAlignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutation, whether changes are undoable, whether at least one of verticalAlignment/horizontalAlignment must be supplied, or how cell addresses are resolved. 'Set' implies a write but nothing about side effects is stated.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline. It is concise yet leaves the agent without enough to act confidently on a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With 7 parameters, 4 required, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight — instead it is a four-word phrase. Critical details (index conventions, whether horizontal/vertical alignment are mutually exclusive or optional with defaults) are entirely absent.

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 only 14% — only document_id is documented, while pageIndex, tableIndex, rowIndex, columnIndex, verticalAlignment, and horizontalAlignment are bare. The description adds nothing about index base, cell addressing, or what alignment values mean or whether they are optional; the phrase 'text alignment' is the only weak hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set cell text alignment') and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as table_setCellFill, table_setCellStroke, and table_setCellInset. It is terse but not tautological, though it never names a sibling or scoping condition.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus table_setCell or the other table_setCell* variants, nor any prerequisite or context for calling it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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