Update SiYuan Database Cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Update a single cell value' without revealing whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on linked data. The value parameter has no type constraints in the schema, so the description should clarify acceptable value formats, but it doesn't.

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, focused sentence: 'Update a single cell value.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to convey return values, error behavior, and side effects—none of which are covered. While the schema documents parameters, the description omits what the call returns (e.g., updated value, confirmation) and how to handle failures. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 100% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the structured data already documents the parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no compensating detail is provided.

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 'Update a single cell value' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (single cell), clearly distinguishing it from row-level operations like av_updateRow. The phrase 'single cell' also clarifies the scope, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like av_updateRow or av_addRow. It does not mention scenarios where a single-cell update is more appropriate than a row update, nor does it warn against misuse. The implied purpose is clear, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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