split_table

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

The description details the split behavior, including which rows remain and which move to a new table inserted immediately after. It also specifies constraints on the split index. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral context, though it omits possible side effects like impacts on tracked changes.

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 highly concise: a one-line summary, two lines of row-range explanation, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with two simple parameters and a straightforward return object, the description covers everything needed: operation, row assignment, parameter constraints, and return structure. The output schema reinforces the return format. No gaps.

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?

Both parameters are clearly described in the Args section: table_idx as 0-based table index and at_row_index as 0-based row index with constraints (>0 and < row_count). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's 'integer' type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 verb 'split' and the resource 'table', specifying the row index. It uniquely distinguishes from all sibling tools, as no other tool performs table splitting.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., using duplicate_table_row or manual copy). Usage is implied from the purpose.

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