update_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Set cell-level properties' without revealing whether properties are merged or replaced, whether validation occurs, or any undo behavior. The prompt parameter description in the schema mentions undo collapsing, but the tool description itself does not communicate this.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and structured.

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 a rich schema (100% coverage) and nested properties, the description omits important context such as the undo-history behavior tied to the prompt parameter, the distinction from sibling set_property tools, and any output or error semantics. For a mutation tool with an unusual prompt requirement, the description is too minimal to be fully self-contained.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a few property examples (gravity, wind, windAngle) that are already reflected in the schema's example payload, providing minimal additional value beyond the structured schema.

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 'Set cell-level properties like gravity, wind, windAngle, size, or label' clearly identifies the action (set) and resource (cell-level properties), with concrete examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_property or bulk_set_property, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_property or bulk_set_property. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any specific context, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this tool.

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