word_edit_table_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Replace' implying mutation, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or how track_changes affects the operation. The schema mentions track_changes, but the description itself provides no context about what modifying the file entails.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and method. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 plus the rich schema (which includes parameter descriptions and the note about applying edits in one pass) provides sufficient context for a straightforward text-replacement tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on distinguishing from sibling tools or addressing edge cases like merged cells, but the schema covers most operational details, making the overall description nearly complete.

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% as every parameter has an individual description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema's already detailed explanations; it only repeats the coordinate concept (table index, row, column) already present in the schema, and does not introduce any new semantic insight.

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 verb 'Replace', the resource 'text of specific table cells', and the method of identification via table index, row, and column. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_edit_table_paragraphs, which edits paragraphs within cells rather than replacing cell text.

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 usage when the user needs to directly replace cell text by coordinates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as word_edit_table_paragraphs or word_read_table_cell. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is merely implied.

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