highlight_table_header

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 mentions 'special highlighting' but doesn't clarify what that means operationally (e.g., whether it modifies the document permanently, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'table header row' which hints at 'table_index' but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly. It doesn't clarify what 'filename' refers to, what 'header_color' and 'text_color' values represent (e.g., hex codes), or how 'table_index' works (e.g., zero-based).

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 special highlighting') and target ('table header row'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading' which could also affect table appearance, but the specific focus on header rows is reasonably clear.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading' which might offer similar functionality. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for applying header highlighting.

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