set_cell_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so well. It discloses auto-execution behavior for draw mode, and the multi-series anchoring rules (first query's timestamp becomes x-axis, subsequent queries add series). These are important behavioral traits beyond what the schema can convey. No contradictions with annotations exist because none are present.

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 that front-load the core purpose, then add a critical warning and a multi-series tip. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but has nuance in multi-series behavior. The description covers the main action, the auto-execution side effect, and advanced usage with multiple SELECT statements. No output schema exists, so return values aren't required. It provides complete context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the description only elaborates on 'mode' semantics by specifying run vs draw output. It does not explain buffer_id or cell_id, which are required parameters, leaving two of three params underspecified. Some value is added for mode, but it's insufficient for an agent to know how to populate the ID fields.

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 opens with 'Switch a SQL cell between run (table output) and draw (chart output)', which is a specific action and outcome. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_cell and set_cell_chart_config by focusing on the mode toggle and resulting output type. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly warns 'Draw cells auto-execute — do not call run_cell afterwards', providing a direct when-not-to-use guideline for an alternative sibling tool. It also explains the multi-series usage scenario with multiple SELECT statements. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with chart-configuration siblings like set_cell_chart_config, but the auto-execute warning covers the key risk.

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