table_setCellStroke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies mutation via "Set". It does not say whether strokeWeight=0 removes a stroke, whether strokeType/strokeColor are optional, whether the change is undoable, or what permissions/state are required. This leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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 five-word sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing, but at this size it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here costs information an agent needs for a 9-parameter mutation.

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 9-parameter (6 required) mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description should carry default values, optionality, and behavioral effects. It provides none of these, leaving the definition substantially incomplete.

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 11% (just document_id), so the description must compensate for eight undocumented parameters — it does not. "edge" and "stroke" loosely hint at the edge enum and stroke fields, but there is no explanation of strokeWeight units, strokeType values, or that strokeColor is optional.

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 verb ("Set") and a resource ("cell edge stroke properties"), and the stroke-setting scope distinguishes it from sibling mutators such as table_setCellFill or table_setCellAlignment. However, "properties" is unspecified — it does not say which of strokeWeight, strokeColor, or strokeType are in play — so it reads close to a restatement of the tool name rather than a clarifying statement.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no naming of sibling tools like table_setCellFill, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. table must exist, cells must be addressable). The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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