add_table_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a row is added and describes parameters, but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient 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 concise: one line of purpose followed by a structured list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on error conditions or validation rules, which could be helpful for robust 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%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters including their types and meaning (e.g., '0-based' indices, default position behavior). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 '向表格中添加新行' (add new row to table), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_table_row, update_table_cell, and create_table_with_data.

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 basic usage context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings is given, though the purpose is self-explanatory.

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