Set WorkPaper Cell Contents

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context: recalculation of dependents, atomic persistence, and return of before/after/restored readback. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the tool's precise side effects and safety profile.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and its effects. It is front-loaded with 'Write raw content' and wastes no words. Every element serves a purpose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations are comprehensive, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects fully. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid sheet name) or confirm that the tool returns the updated cell value, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description is not required to add much parameter detail. The description mentions formula strings must start with =, which is already in the schema. Overall, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a strong action verb 'Write' and clearly specifies the resource 'one cell', distinguishing it from sibling read tools like read_cell and read_range. It also details the side effects (recalculate, atomically persist, return readback), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the sibling list implies this is for writing versus reading, an agent might benefit from explicit contrast with other tools, such as noting that ranges are not accepted and that this is for single cell operations only.

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