add_table_row

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes 'tracked insertion', which hints at change tracking, but does not cover other important behaviors such as required permissions, effects on document state, or error handling (e.g., invalid table_idx). More detail would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with two key points (action and append behavior). No superfluous text; every word earns its place.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief. It covers the core action but omits details on parameter usage, error conditions, or response format. While an output schema exists, the description does not complement it with necessary context for correct invocation.

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 only adds meaning for row_idx (default -1 means append). Other parameters (table_idx, cells, author, document_handle) are not explained, leaving their roles unclear. For a 5-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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: 'Add a row to a table'. It also specifies a key behavior: 'with tracked insertion' and provides a usage tip for row_idx=-1 indicating append. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_table_row or modify_cell.

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 adding a row, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_table_row or modify_cell. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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