add-excel-table-rows

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutating operation. The description does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as confirming that rows are appended to the end of the table, that it does not modify existing rows, or any side effects like overwriting data if the table changes. With no additional context, an agent knows it is destructive but not the precise behavior, which is a notable 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 succinct, using a single line for the core action and a well-formatted tip that provides the essential body example. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every element earns its place: the action, the body template, and the column-count constraint. There is no verbose or redundant content.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (nested body, 4 required parameters) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key usage: how to structure the values array and the column constraint. However, it does not mention what happens after execution (e.g., returns the added rows) or the confirm gate behavior (though confirm is documented in the schema). This is acceptable for a simple tool, but a mention of the append operation's effect would have made it more complete.

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 schema covers most parameters (86% coverage), but the description adds crucial semantics for the 'body' parameter by showing the exact structure: an array of arrays where each inner array is a row. It also clarifies the constraint that values must match the number of columns. This goes beyond the schema's terse description of 'values' and helps the agent construct a correct payload.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add Excel table rows.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-excel-table-rows, update-excel-table-row, and delete-excel-table-row. The added tip reinforces the action by showing an example of the body payload, so an agent can immediately grasp the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-excel-table-row or delete-excel-table-row. The purpose is implied by the name, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need to append rows' or 'use this instead of update for new rows.' This leaves some ambiguity for an agent choosing among the Excel table row operations.

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