Edit table structure

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, not read-only, not idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral context: deletion permanently discards cell content and remaining rows/columns shift, changing indexes between successive edits. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect an agent needs to know.

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 clause earns its place: purpose, per-action parameter mapping, defaults, destructive consequences, index-shift caveat, and the explicit alternative for text edits. It is one well-structured paragraph 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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action-specific parameter combinations, defaults, destructive behavior, and exclusions. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the operation returns or what success looks like, though this does not block correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by mapping each action to its applicable parameters (row_index/column_index, below/right, count) and clarifying defaults and the 1-20 count range in context. It does not merely repeat schema text.

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 tool 'Restructures an existing table in one call' and enumerates the four exact structural actions it supports. It also explicitely distinguishes itself from set_text/insert_text by stating cell text is not written here, so an agent can tell it apart from the text-editing siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool for structural edits and when not to use it, pointing to set_text/insert_text for cell text. It also warns that indexes shift between successive edits and tells the agent to re-check with list_slides, which is clear operational guidance.

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