dingtalk_sheet_update

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'write data' without explaining whether this overwrites the entire range, how it handles partial updates, whether special permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, even though it lacks contextual details that are penalized in other dimensions.

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 that this is a write/update operation with no annotations or output schema, the description needs to convey overwriting behavior, data format expectations, and possible side effects. It only says 'write data to a specified area,' which is insufficient to distinguish from the sibling append tool. The schema covers parameter meanings but not the operational context.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, covering 100% of them. The description itself does not add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already offers. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not supplement it.

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 verb 'write data' and the resource 'specified area of an online spreadsheet'. It conveys the core action, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dingtalk_sheet_append or dingtalk_sheet_read. The name 'update' implies overwriting an existing range, but the description alone could be confused with appending.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for updating existing cells, while append adds rows, or that read is for retrieval. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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