tables_db_create_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite (table creation) but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created row). For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief (two sentences) but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the second sentence focuses on a prerequisite rather than core functionality. While concise, the structure could be improved by integrating the prerequisite more naturally or adding more relevant usage context.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It mentions a prerequisite but doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a database write operation with multiple parameters and no structured output information, more comprehensive guidance is needed to help an agent use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Create a new Row') and specifies the resource (a row in a database table). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tables_db_create_rows' (plural) and 'tables_db_create_table' by focusing on single row creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tables_db_upsert_row' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 a prerequisite ('Before using this route, you should create a new table resource'), which is helpful context. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tables_db_create_rows' (for batch operations) or 'tables_db_upsert_row' (for update-or-insert scenarios). No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is included.

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