input_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the key trait of re-identifying the grid each time, which is a critical behavioral detail for an AI agent. It does not mention other behaviors like return value or error handling, but for a simple input action, this is adequate.

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 action and key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools exist, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and a critical behavioral trait, though it could briefly mention what the tool does not return (e.g., no cell content).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'ref' and 'text' parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it clicks a cell and inputs text, with the specific behavioral trait of re-identifying the grid each time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click_cell' (clicks only) and 'quick_input_cell' (likely skips re-identification). The verb 'input' matches the tool name.

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?

Usage context is implied through the re-identification behavior, suggesting this tool is appropriate when grid re-detection is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'quick_input_cell' or when not to use it.

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