update-excel-table-row

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Update' adds little beyond the annotation. It does disclose that the operation targets a single row and requires a column-count-matching array, which implies full-row overwrite, but it does not describe return behavior, error cases, or permission requirements.

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 concise: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a focused tip. It front-loads the core intent and adds only the most essential detail about the request body, with no redundant filler.

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?

With 8 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and body structure but omits workflow context such as how table/row IDs are obtained, what happens when the row index is out of bounds, or what the response contains. It leans on schema descriptions for path parameters, but the absence of output details is a notable gap.

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 schema has descriptions for path parameters and confirm flags, but the tool description adds crucial meaning for 'body' (which is an untyped object in the schema) by specifying '{ values: [[...]] } with one inner array matching the column count.' It also clarifies 'index' is zero-based, which the schema does not. This compensates for the schema's lack of body structure detail.

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 tool updates an Excel table row, specifying 'single row in a formal Excel table by zero-based row index.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-excel-range or delete-excel-table-row by focusing on row-level updates in formal tables.

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 for updating a single row in a formal Excel table, and the tip elaborates on the expected body format. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., update-excel-range) or state when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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