spreadsheet_write_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as a bulk overwrite, the endpoint (PUT /styles), and the style-only nature. While it doesn't explicitly state that unspecified styles are reset, 'overwrite' implies replacement. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 (two sentences plus a requirement note) and front-loads the core purpose and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value, though the version requirement could be integrated more succinctly.

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?

Despite having no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key requirements. It provides enough information for an AI to select and invoke the tool correctly, though more detail on the overwrite behavior (e.g., that unspecified styles are cleared) could enhance completeness.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by clarifying the optionality of file_id vs name ('Provide either file_id or name') and by summarizing the style fields. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 overwrites cell styles for a rectangular block, lists specific style attributes, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool spreadsheet_batch_update by noting it is simpler for style-only writes. The verb 'overwrite' and resource 'cell styles' are specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool over alternatives: 'simpler than batch_update for style-only writes' and directs to 'use spreadsheet_batch_update' for mixed edits. It also mentions the required Synology Office version. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, but the guidance is clear.

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