add_validated_rows

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing deduplication, cost quoting, and the append-and-validate behavior. It explains the effect on source Excel and the merging of results. This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency without contradicting annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true agree).

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, two sentences for key behavior, one sentence for precondition. It is front-loaded with the main action and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, precondition, deduplication, cost quote, and validation merging. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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. However, the description adds significant context about the confirmed parameter's dual behavior, deduplication logic, and cost quoting. It enriches understanding beyond the parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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's action: 'Add new rows to a completed validation table.' It specifies the resource (validation table) and the verb (add), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it operates on completed validation tables, unlike add_pending_row or other row-related tools.

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 provides a clear precondition: 'Only available after full validation completes (status=completed).' It also explains the two-phase use via the confirmed parameter. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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