set_header_row

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens to existing header settings, or any side effects. Merely states the action without behavioral context.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but lacks necessary detail. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices completeness for conciseness. The single sentence earns its place but leaves many gaps.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description still feels incomplete. It does not explain what 'repeating header row' means, whether it requires a table with multiple rows, or the effect on existing table structure.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the single parameter 'table_index' or its meaning beyond the schema type. Parameter semantics are entirely left to the parameter name and type, which is insufficient.

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 action ('mark'), the resource ('the first row'), and the outcome ('as a repeating header row'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_table_row' or 'set_table_style'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., table must exist, must have at least one row), and no exclusions. E.g., not clear when 'set_header_row' is preferred over 'set_table_style' with header settings.

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