format_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that only passed arguments are modified, implying non-destructive behavior for unspecified properties. It details valid values for color, alignment, wrap, and number format. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing formatting), authentication needs, rate limits, or return value.

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 concise with a clear one-sentence summary followed by bullet points for parameter details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. The structure is easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 15 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main formatting categories well. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what is returned after formatting? success indicator?) and does not mention any preconditions like requiring a valid spreadsheet_id/range. Overall, it is reasonably complete for typical use but could be stronger.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining valid formats for colors (hex, named), enumerating alignment options, and detailing number format type/pattern with examples. However, it does not describe boolean parameters like bold, italic, underline, strikethrough, or font_size/font_family, leaving some parameters with only schema-provided titles.

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 clearly states the tool applies cell formatting to an A1 range, using the specific phrase 'Apply cell formatting to an A1 range.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_borders or merge_cells by focusing on font, color, alignment, and number format. The verb 'apply' and resource 'cell formatting' are specific and action-oriented.

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 implies use for formatting cells but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_borders or apply_style_preset. It lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., range must exist), when not to use, or trade-offs. The sentence 'Only the arguments you pass change' offers some usage hint but no explicit context.

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