insert_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return structure but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is atomic, error handling specifics, or constraints like foreign key relationships. The description is functional but lacks depth for a mutation 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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. The output schema covers return values, reducing burden, but the description lacks context on dependencies, error scenarios, or transactional behavior, leaving gaps for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'table' as the table name with schema notation examples, and 'data' as a dictionary of column-value pairs. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail data type constraints or validation rules.

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 ('Insert a new row') and resource ('into a table'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_row' or 'read_rows' beyond the basic verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_row' or 'execute_query', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active connection or specific database context. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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