slides_insert_table_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the insert_below parameter's default behavior, what happens when row_index is out of range, or any side effects on the table structure or formatting. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness while still conveying the core purpose.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain critical usage details like insertion position semantics and table requirements, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain the role of presentation_id, table_object_id, row_index, or insert_below, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and types alone.

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 a specific action ('Insert a row') on a specific resource ('existing table on a slide'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_insert_table_column and slides_delete_table_row. The phrase 'existing table' also clarifies that this is not for creating tables.

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 phrase 'existing table on a slide' provides clear context: the tool is for adding rows to existing slide tables, implying the table must already be created. While no alternatives are explicitly named, the context differentiates it from docs_insert_table_row and slides_insert_table.

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