add_table_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It mentions 'tracked insertion' but does not explain what this entails (e.g., whether it requires track changes to be enabled, or if it creates a tracked change). There is no disclosure of side effects, authorization requirements, or output description beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 that immediately states the purpose. However, given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, tracked insertion), it is too brief and omits important details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

The description lacks context about the expected input format (cells array), the meaning of tracked insertion, and the role of the author and document_handle parameters. Although an output schema exists, its contents are not hinted at. The tool's behavior is not fully described for a user to understand its operation without external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only clarifies the row_idx parameter with the default behavior of appending when set to -1. The table_idx, cells, author, and document_handle parameters remain unexplained. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent, especially for cells (array of strings) and author (used for tracking?).

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) and the resource (table). It also mentions tracked insertion, indicating a specific behavior. However, the phrase 'tracked insertion' is not further explained, and the context of it being a document table is assumed from sibling tools. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from siblings like delete_table_row or duplicate_table_row, but clarity could be improved with a brief mention of the document context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., table must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if the table is read-only). The only hint is that row_idx=-1 appends, but this is more about behavior than usage context.

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