highlight_table_header

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Highlight the table header row' without explaining that it likely modifies background color (via header_color) and text color (via text_color) of the header row. No mention of mutation, prerequisites, or side effects. The defaults in the schema are not explained.

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, making it concise. However, it lacks structure: no parameter descriptions, no usage hints, and no behavioral context. While brevity is good, more informative content could be added without much length.

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 number of parameters (4) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the tool requires an existing table, what the default color values are, what the returned output is (no output schema), or how this tool relates to other table formatting tools. The description provides minimal context for correct usage.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema property descriptions are empty. The description does not explain what doc_id, table_index, header_color, or text_color represent or how to use them. The defaults for colors are noted in the schema but not in the description, leaving the agent without meaning.

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 ('highlight') and the resource ('table header row'), but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like apply_table_alternating_rows or format_table_cell_text that can also modify table appearance. The verb is specific to highlighting, which suggests background or text color changes.

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 are many sibling tools for table formatting (e.g., set_table_cell_shading, format_table), and the description does not explain the specific scenario for this tool. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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