Update Table Cell (raw)

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, revealing that edits can relocate the table and change its location-derived id, that the response returns the current tableId plus previousTableId, and that the tool reads the table back to trigger recompile. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to safely chain calls.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, value semantics, raw-source behavior, coordinate conventions, id volatility, and recompile side effect. Critical operational details are front-loaded before the less central compile note.

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 mutating table cell tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: required value semantics, coordinate system, raw-source behavior, id changes, and side effects on project status. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful context: null is the explicit way to clear, row 0 is the header row, column 0 carries leading labels, and the returned tableId should be used for subsequent calls. This enriches the schema's already-solid parameter 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 states the specific verb ('Update'), the exact resource ('a single existing cell at ('row','column')'), and the scope ('raw source, works for any table type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_update_table_row, openl_update_table_column, and openl_update_table_range.

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 makes clear this is for editing one raw-source cell and works across table types, which implies when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some routing inference to the agent rather than spelling out exclusions.

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