split_table_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation that rewrites the .docx file, whether changes are saved in place or reversible, whether table formatting/styles survive the split, or any permission/file-state requirements.

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 tight sentence with the key operation front-loaded and the critical indexing convention appended. No filler, though it is terse enough that behavioral detail is omitted rather than trimmed.

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 an unannotated document-mutating tool with three undocumented parameters, the description omits the file-modification semantics, error conditions, and indexing scope that an agent would need.

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% across three required parameters. The description usefully clarifies that split_row_index is 0-indexed, but leaves file_path and table_index (notably how tables are indexed when multiple exist) entirely undefined, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (split/'Membagi') and resource (table), and identifies the exact insertion point via split_row_index. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like merge_cells_docx or resize_table_docx, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. the table must exist and have enough rows), and no note about what happens if split_row_index is out of range or at row 0. Usage is only implied by the operation name.

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