add_chooser_row

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the edit is a single undo step, that it compiles and saves the table, that columns fall back to DefaultRowValue where available, and that the call reports success=false with save_error on failure. This is exactly the mutation-side context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the action, then mechanics, then failure semantics, then the return shape — all in three sentences with no filler. The phrasing is dense but each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully inlines the return shape, and it covers the mutation/undo/save-failure behavior. What is missing is only surrounding context, e.g. whether the table must be loaded or whether the added row has a default outcome until set.

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% and the single parameter (table_path) is already documented in the schema as a "Long package path of an existing UChooserTable." The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one implicit row to a UChooserTable") and immediately explains the mechanical effect on columns' RowValues and ResultsStructs. This clearly separates it from siblings like add_chooser_column_to_table and set_chooser_row_outcome.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanics (add a row before setting its outcome), but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any precondition such as the table needing to be open/loaded. No explicit when-not guidance or sibling routing is offered.

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