edit_cell_source

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

The description mentions 'find and replace' implying mutation, but it does not disclose key behaviors: whether all occurrences are replaced, case sensitivity, error handling when old_string is not found, or side effects on cell execution state. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it may be too brief; some additional details could fit without harming conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not cover indexing, replacement behavior, or return value (output schema exists but is undocumented). Essential context for correct tool use 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?

Although the description implies the roles of old_string and new_string, it fails to specify the cell_index convention (0-based or 1-based) or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Find and replace text in a cell's source code' clearly states the verb (find and replace) and resource (cell's source code), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_cell or execute_cell, which have different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context-specific advice, such as when to prefer edit_cell_source over other cell manipulation tools like insert_cell or delete_cell.

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