preview_small_live_label_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool requires no COM or ROT access, is a pure preview without probing or attaching candidates, and defers attachment. This provides good behavioral context, though it does not detail the output or potential side effects beyond being a preview.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (behavior, alternatives, constraints). No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral transparency well for a preview tool, it omits parameter guidance and does not hint at the output structure (though output schema exists). Given the complexity of the input (3 params, nested object) and low schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context to be fully complete.

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 description must compensate. It does not explain the required parameters 'path' and 'values' (an object of key-value pairs) or the optional 'timeout_seconds'. The description only discusses tool behavior, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema with no added context.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview small live label:value cell fills' and explicitly distinguishes from whole-template completion and sibling tools like complete_addressed_template and apply_small_live_label_cells. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it contrasts with full template completion, recommends complete_addressed_template for structured forms, and notes that exact-path attachment is deferred to apply_small_live_label_cells. Alternatives are named.

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