write_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recalculation step, the possibility of errors_found from recalculation, and the create_sheet_if_missing behavior. It stops short of explicitly stating that existing cell contents are overwritten, but that is implied by the action.

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 follows a clean docstring format: a one-sentence summary, a practical usage note, an Args list explaining each parameter, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value with no fluff 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?

The description covers all 5 parameters, the return value including errors_found, and a key behavioral caveat about avoiding recalculation in complex workbooks. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, especially with an output schema also available.

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 explains every parameter clearly and defines the structure of the cells list as objects with cell/value or cell/formula, which the schema leaves as additionalProperties. This is essential for correct use.

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 action: 'Write values and/or formulas into specific cells, then recalculate the workbook.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like merge_cells and set_cell_style by focusing on cell content writing rather than structure or formatting.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to set recalculate=False ('for structurally complex workbooks you don't want round-tripped') and clarifies the path parameter ('Omit if only one file is configured'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, so it stops short of a full 5.

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