set_data_table_row_from_json

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-read-only, idempotent behavior, but the description adds crucial operational context beyond them: success:true can coexist with silently dropped columns, and it details three concrete failure modes (JSON array for GameplayTagContainer, internal-name sub-fields, space-containing enum display names). It also says to read the problems array and confirm with read_data_table_row_complex, which is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 core action and merge behavior are front-loaded, followed by routing context, high-value failure warnings, confirmation advice, and return shape. Despite its length, every sentence carries actionable information for correct invocation; there is 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (success or error payload) and, more importantly, explains partial-success behavior via the problems array. Combined with annotations and 100% schema coverage, it gives the agent everything needed to call and verify this destructive write.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds significant semantic value for row_json: it is the native shape emitted by get_data_table_row_as_json, merge=true overwrites only supplied columns, and it gives concrete value-format workarounds for GameplayTagContainer, sub-fields, and enums. This is well beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 (write) and resource (DataTable row) and format (native-format JSON from get_data_table_row_as_json), and differentiates from field-level/simple row tools via whole-row semantics and the merge flag. Names the confirming sibling read_data_table_row_complex, so an agent can place it in the family.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent for copying a row between tables or authoring a complex row in one call, which is clear usage context. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., prefer set_data_table_row_fields for single-cell edits) nor name those alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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