apply_table_alternating_rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool applies colors but doesn't disclose whether this modifies the document permanently, requires specific permissions, affects existing formatting, or provides any confirmation of success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with zero redundant words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications, success indicators, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., document path), how 'table_index' works (zero-based?), or that 'color1' and 'color2' are hex codes with defaults. This leaves all 4 parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('apply alternating row colors') and the resource ('to a table'), with the benefit 'for better readability' providing useful context. It distinguishes this from general table formatting tools like 'format_table' by specifying the specific visual enhancement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'highlight_table_header' or 'set_table_cell_shading' for other table styling. The description implies usage for readability improvement but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing table) or exclusions.

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