insert_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a write, that data is schema-validated, that an audit event is produced, and that results are masked by default. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, and what 'masked' concretely means.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the write action and several important traits efficiently, though its terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, low parameter coverage, and a nested data object, so the description needs to compensate more than it does. It mentions audit behavior and default masking but leaves key operational details such as permissions, table semantics, and reveal behavior unstated.

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 explain the three parameters. It hints at schema-validated data and default masking through 'reveal', but it never explains the required table argument, the structure of data, or how reveal changes 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 write operation: inserting schema-validated business fields plus an audit event. That clearly identifies it as an insert tool and distinguishes it from siblings like update_row and delete_row, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use insert_row versus update_row, delete_row, or other related tools. The leading 'WRITE' cue helps orient the agent, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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