apply_table_alternating_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining what happens to existing colors, whether header rows are affected, or the meaning of default color values. It does not mention if the tool is destructive or requires permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

While the description is brief (one sentence), it omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than concise. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, so it does not earn high marks for efficiency.

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 lack of output schema, 4 parameters with no descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid table_index), or side effects. A tool that modifies a document needs much more context for safe 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% for 4 parameters, and the description adds no explanation of what parameters like 'table_index', 'color1', or 'color2' represent. The description does not clarify that 'color1' and 'color2' are the two alternating colors or that 'table_index' is the zero-based index of the table in the document. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Apply alternating row colors to a table' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling table tools like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading', which could also modify colors. The verb 'apply' and resource 'alternating row colors' are specific enough to convey the core purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), context for the table_index, or when this is preferable to other formatting tools. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools like 'format_table'.

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