docs_insert_table_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the insertion action and the meaning of table_start_index, omitting effects on existing rows, semantics of row_index and insert_below, error conditions, or mutation implications. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 with two front-loaded sentences, no wasted words. Every sentence provides some signal, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Still, it is appropriately structured for the information it contains.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how row_index and insert_below affect the operation, how to locate the table via character offset, or what output to expect. The existing output schema may cover returns, but the description leaves critical usage details unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only table_start_index, leaving row_index, insert_below, and document_id (mostly self-evident) undefined. The description adds minimal value and fails to clarify non-obvious parameters like row_index and insert_below behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a row into an existing table.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like docs_delete_table_row, docs_insert_table_column, and docs_insert_table, and the added clarification of table_start_index reinforces the purpose.

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 implies use when adding a row to an existing table, but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for a straightforward insertion but lacks exclusions like 'for adding a column, use docs_insert_table_column.'

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