insert_table_row

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by stating the row-width validation rule and the append-to-end fallback when after_row_id is empty, though it never says what happens if the width check fails.

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?

Front-loaded with the single-sentence purpose, then the critical constraint, then a structured Args block. Every line is functional; the format example earns its space because the cells_json encoding is non-obvious from the schema.

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 no explanation, and all three parameters plus the validation rule are documented. The only gap is failure behaviour on a width mismatch, which an agent would want to know to handle errors.

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 carries the full burden and does so: table_id is identified as a table block ID, cells_json is given a precise element grammar with a worked 3-column example, and after_row_id is explained including its empty-string fallback. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Names a concrete verb ('Insert') and resource ('a new row into an existing table'), which is clearly distinct from update_table_cell or insert_blocks_after by resource alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a reader must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the verb and resource, and the width-matching constraint effectively tells the caller the precondition for a valid call. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance against the neighbouring cell-update or block-insert tools.

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