Apply formatting to a specific cell by setting its style index or toggling bold and italic attributes. Specify row and column to update style properties directly.
设置单元格样式索引或样式属性。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| col | Yes | ||
| row | Yes | ||
| bold | No | ||
| style | No | ||
| italic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it is extremely terse. It does not state whether setting a style replaces existing styling, how the 'index' and 'properties' modes interact when both are supplied, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. The implied mutation behavior is left entirely to inference.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately compact. The tool name and description align, and the two-mode distinction is placed upfront. It's efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. Missing details include the semantics of each mode, how row/col are addressed, the behavior when both style and bold/italic are set, and what happens on overwrite. An agent has too little to call it correctly.
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 partially does by mapping the 'style index' mode to the style parameter and 'style properties' to bold/italic, which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves row/col semantics unexplained and doesn't clarify how style vs bold/italic interact, so compensation is only partial.
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 clear verb (set) and resource (cell style), and usefully distinguishes two modes: 'style index' (the style param) versus 'style properties' (bold, italic). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools that also set things (set_property, set_spreadsheet_cell, set_enum_options), so an agent must infer which one to pick based on the cell-style context.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when/when-not conditions, no exclusions, and no context about relationship to sibling set_* or bind_* tools. An agent gets no help routing between set_cell_style and the many other cell/template mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.