update_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool overwrites preemptively and that cells are auto-saved, which are important behavioral traits. It also warns about the risks of truncated reads, adding valuable context beyond the basic operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a behavioral note and a practical usage caution. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for the main use case and includes a critical warning about long cells. However, it omits any explanation of return values or buffer_id semantics, leaving minor gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. Only 'value' and 'cell_id' are vaguely inferable from the phrase 'cell's value,' but 'buffer_id' is entirely unexplained. The description adds very little semantic meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 begins with 'Replace a cell's value,' which is a specific action with the resource clearly identified. It also adds behavioral details ('Overwrites preemptively — cells are auto-saved') that distinguish it from related tools like add_cell or run_cell.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use to fix a broken SQL cell' and provides detailed guidance on editing long cells (base the new value on a non-truncated read using get_cell with get_full_content: true). It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, but the alternatives are implied through the reference to get_cell.

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