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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses atomic all-or-nothing behavior, that the error identifies the failing row and reason, and that unique-column collisions are rejected. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before attempting a bulk write.

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?

Front-loads the action and batch limit, then value formats, then atomicity, then the redirect to upsert_rows. Every sentence adds distinct operational information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only covers the failure path (which row failed and why), not what a successful call returns such as a count of inserted rows. Everything else needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 67%, and the description more than compensates by defining the rows payload as {column name: value} and specifying per-type value formats (YYYY-MM-DD dates, true/false checkboxes, option names for select/status, lists for multi-select). The table and workspace parameters are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add rows to a data table") with an explicit batch bound and the row object shape. It also names the sibling it is not (upsert_rows), so an agent can distinguish it from update_rows/upsert_rows without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion with the routing condition: values already in the unique column are rejected, and upsert_rows is named as the tool to use instead. The 500-row-per-call limit also sets a practical usage boundary.

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