update_conditional_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details: omitted range_name preserves existing ranges, omitted condition_type preserves the existing type, and gradient_points switches the rule to a gradient scale. It also states the return value includes the current rule state. It does not discuss permissions or error scenarios, but the provided behavior is rich enough for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative, and the overall length is appropriate for a 10-parameter tool. Every sentence earns its place without 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 tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and return values. While it lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., invalid rule_index), the tool is sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema exists, so return details are already structured, and the description adds the confirmation/current-state context.

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 the description must compensate. It provides detailed Args with explanations for every parameter, including optionality and default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds semantic 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 states a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('existing conditional formatting rule by index on a sheet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_conditional_formatting and delete_conditional_formatting. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 clear context: the tool is for modifying an existing rule using its index. It implies the user must already have a rule and know its index, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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