set_notebook_autorefresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that auto-refresh never executes writes, that DDL/DML cells are skipped, that the call is atomic when resetting overrides, that nothing re-runs, and that false/null leaves existing per-cell overrides in place.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, precedence, safety, polling behavior, value semantics, override-reset semantics, and side effects. Important claims are front-loaded before detailed parameter behavior.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it interacts with per-cell overrides, what side effects occur, which cells are skipped, and what the value parameter means. The only minor omission is buffer_id semantics, which is a parameter-level gap rather than a contextual one.

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 description thoroughly explains `value` (true, false, or interval string) and `reset_cell_overrides` (true deletes all overrides atomically; false/null leaves them in place). However, `buffer_id` is not explained at all, and with 0% schema description coverage the schema provides no help either, leaving a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('set'), names the exact resource ('notebook-level auto-refresh default'), and defines the scope ('every cell showing a chart or a grid'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from set_cell_autorefresh, so an agent can select the right tool immediately.

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 clearly explains when this tool applies: cells without a per-cell value inherit the default, and set_cell_autorefresh creates a per-cell override that wins. It also states that until this is set nothing polls, and that DDL/DML cells are skipped, giving the agent clear selection and safety context.

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