edit_table_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema, namely that some Word builds reject column operations with InvalidArgument, which helps an agent interpret failures. However, it never states that deletion permanently destroys cell content, nor anything about permissions or what the success response contains, which are significant gaps for a mutating 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?

The core action is front-loaded in a single short sentence, followed by mode-specific details separated by clear semicolons and a final caveat. There is no filler, and each clause adds usable information.

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?

With seven parameters, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operation's two branches and the main failure mode well. It stops short of describing what happens to existing data on delete or what the tool returns, which would round out a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including enums and defaults. The description restates position, columnIndex, and the 2D-array shape of values without adding format or edge-case detail (for example, how many rows values must have), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb pair and resource: add or delete columns of a table. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like insert_table (creates a table) or set_table_cell (writes a single cell), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

The description explains both modes in detail: for add, where Before/After insert and optional value pre-fill; for delete, count columns starting at columnIndex. It also flags a real operational caveat (some Word builds reject the operation with InvalidArgument), though it never names an alternative tool for cases where this one fails.

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