update-excel-table-row

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds that it updates a row (destructive) but does not disclose additional traits like error handling for invalid index, whether it overwrites partially or fully, or any side effects beyond the update. The confirm parameter is documented in schema but not mentioned in description.

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?

Description is mostly concise with a clear first sentence. However, the '💡 TIP' sentence essentially repeats the same information, adding unnecessary redundancy. Could be improved by removing the tip.

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 destructive tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core action and body format but omits details about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), and the confirm parameter's role, leaving the agent with gaps.

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 coverage is high (88%), but the description adds critical semantic information for the 'body' parameter: it specifies the required structure '{ values: [[...]] }' with one inner array matching column count, which is not present in the schema's body definition. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail on body.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a single row in a formal Excel table by zero-based row index', which specifies the verb (update) and resource (row in an Excel table). It distinguishes from related sibling tools like add-excel-table-rows and delete-excel-table-row, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add-excel-table-rows for adding, or other update methods). No mention of prerequisites like existing table or row, or scenarios where index might be out of range.

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