origin_append_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'append' without disclosing what happens if the worksheet doesn't exist, whether data is overwritten or appended, or any prerequisites. Many behavioral aspects are missing.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many optional). It front-loads the action but omits necessary context, making it under-specified.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool definition is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (though output schema exists), file source, and how it differs from similar tools like origin_import_table.

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 0% — no parameter descriptions. The description does not add any meaning to the 11 parameters, leaving the agent to guess what each one does (e.g., 'delimiter', 'encoding', 'na_values').

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 'append', the resource 'table data into an existing Origin worksheet', and the starting point 'at a column'. This distinguishes it from import tools that create new worksheets.

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 explicit usage guidance or comparison to siblings like origin_import_table or origin_write_worksheet. The context of appending to an existing worksheet is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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