LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changes are 'saved immediately' (important behavioral trait), but doesn't mention error conditions, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the cell doesn't exist. It adequately describes the core mutation behavior but lacks comprehensive operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - no redundancy, no unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks important details about error handling, return values, and operational constraints. It covers the 'what' but not the 'what happens if' or 'what you get back' aspects that would be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify precedence rules beyond what's in the formula parameter description). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Set the value or formula'), target resource ('single cell in a spreadsheet'), and scope ('immediately saved'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spreadsheet_set_range (which handles multiple cells) and spreadsheet_get_formulas (which is read-only).

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 implies usage for setting individual cell values/formulas but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like spreadsheet_set_range for multiple cells or document_insert_text for text documents. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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