add_column_docx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that a column can be inserted at a position index, but says nothing about whether existing columns shift, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens when values/width are omitted. For a mutating table tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and leads with the core action. It is efficient, though slightly thin for the amount of undocumented behavior it must cover.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about insertion side effects and defaults; it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps three of the five parameters to meaning (optional cell text = values, optional width = width_inches, optional position index = insert_index), while file_path and table_index are self-explanatory. It still omits format details such as default width behavior or how values align to rows, so compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding/inserting a column in a docx table, which clearly separates it from column-unrelated siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with add_row_docx or delete_column_docx, but the resource (column) makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_row_docx or delete_column_docx. The agent can infer it inserts columns into an existing table, but nothing routes it here versus other table-editing tools.

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