Add or insert a new row into a DOCX table with optional cell texts, row height, and insertion index.
Menambahkan atau menyisipkan baris baru pada tabel docx dengan teks sel opsional, tinggi opsional, dan indeks posisi opsional
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| table_index | Yes | ||
| insert_index | No | ||
| height_inches | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short. It does not state whether the file is modified in place, what happens to existing rows, whether insert_index shifts subsequent rows, or what happens if values length mismatches the column count.
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 with no filler, leading with the action and resource before the optional modifiers. Appropriate length, though it could have spent a clause on the append-vs-insert distinction.
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 described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves key operational questions (insert semantics, path requirements, value/column alignment) unanswered.
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 does map three of the five parameters to their meaning (cell text, height, position index), but file_path and table_index are left unexplained, and it adds no units, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema titles.
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 ('Menambahkan atau menyisipkan baris baru pada tabel docx') and enumerates the optional inputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_column_docx and delete_row_docx, though it never names an alternative.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description notes the row can be added or inserted but never explains the condition that selects append vs. insert, nor any prerequisites such as the table needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.