edit_cell

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: editing code cells clears outputs/execution_count, optional summary handling, concurrent write protection via expected_rev, and return of new rev. 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?

Concise yet comprehensive: first sentence states action, then guidelines, then parameter details, all in a few sentences without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, side effects, and return value. Could optionally clarify path format, but overall sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to key parameters: index/cell_id usage, source is implicit, summary semantics, expected_rev purpose. Path is not explained but is straightforward. Strong compensation.

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 replaces a cell's entire source, distinguishes from patch_cell for small changes, and specifies targeting methods (index or cell_id). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for full replacements, prefer patch_cell for small changes, target by cell_id to avoid shifting, and notes on optional parameters like summary and expected_rev. This is comprehensive usage advice.

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