set_conditional_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details all parameters, includes a dry_run flag for previewing changes, and implies a write operation. However, it does not state permissions required or behavior if a rule already exists, which would enhance transparency.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. The bullet-point parameter list is clear but could be slightly more concise. Overall, it earns its space.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers all parameter meanings, includes a dry_run option, and provides usage examples, making it complete enough for agentic use.

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 explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly with examples (e.g., condition_values: ['100'] or ['=B2>C2']), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Add a conditional-format rule to a range.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_basic_filter and set_cell_style, which handle different formatting operations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_basic_filter or set_cell_style. The usage context is implied ('add a conditional-format rule') but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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