docx.remove_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. It mentions 'by coordinates' implying index-based removal, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether changes persist without saving, effects on document structure, or error behavior for out-of-range indices). The cautious phrase hints at risk but lacks specifics.

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 sentence with no fluff. The caution 'USE ONLY after manual analysis' is placed after the main action, but it is concise and the core purpose is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, whether the document must be saved afterward, how the tool handles missing rows, or the relationship to manual analysis. Given the sibling tools like docx.save, some context is implied, but the description alone leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'coordinates' aligns with the rowIndex and tableIndex parameters but adds no new detail beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not explain how indices are validated or what happens if invalid.

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 the action clearly: 'Remove specific table row by coordinates' with a specific resource (table row) and method (by coordinates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docx.table_edit which are broader, though it does not name them explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'USE ONLY after manual analysis' gives a caution but does not explain what analysis is needed or when to choose this tool over alternatives like docx.table_edit or docx.find_empty_table_rows. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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