Update Coda Row

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds the return value ('Request ID confirmation') which is not in annotations, providing some additional transparency. No contradictions.

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 concise with one sentence for purpose, a bullet list of args, and a return statement. All information is front-loaded and relevant. Could be slightly more streamlined but no unnecessary text.

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 simple update tool, the description provides essential information. However, given the openWorldHint annotation and many sibling tools, more context about side effects, partial updates, or error handling would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not rich.

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%, so the description's parameter descriptions are largely redundant with the schema. However, it clarifies the cells format as '{column, value} pairs' which is slightly more explicit than the schema's object structure. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and the resource (specific cells in an existing row). It differentiates from sibling tools like coda_upsert_rows (which can insert) and coda_delete_row (deletion).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coda_upsert_rows. It does not mention that the row must exist or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context for selection.

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