add_column_to_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions adding a column to every row and header_text placement, but omits details on edge cases (e.g., invalid table_idx, empty table, effect on existing columns) and side effects. This lack of depth leaves the agent uncertain about operational boundaries.

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 succinct with two sentences, earning its keep without excess. However, the second sentence 'First row gets header_text.' is slightly ambiguous (could imply header_text replaces something) and could be rephrased for clarity. Overall 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (adding a column), the description is too brief. It does not mention return values (despite an output schema), prerequisites (table must exist), or behavior under invalid inputs. The 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations amplify the need for a richer description, which is not provided.

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. It explains the 'header_text' parameter as being placed in the first row, but does not describe 'table_idx' (presumably the table index). Only one of two parameters receives partial clarification, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 it adds a new column to every row and specifies that the first row gets header_text. This distinctly identifies the tool's function from siblings like add_table, add_table_row, and delete_column_from_table, which operate on tables differently.

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 description implies usage when a user needs to add a column to a table, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like modifying existing columns. No exclusions or context for prerequisites are given.

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