remove_alternate_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add a key detail: 'Appends Table.AlternateRows to the table's M query,' which explains the mutation behavior. However, it does not mention side effects like reversibility, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by the behavioral effect. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition.

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 simple scope (no output schema, few edge cases), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how it works. The algorithm is clearly described, and the schema fills in parameter details. It could be more complete regarding prerequisites or return behavior, but it is above the minimum viable for this type of tool.

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?

The schema already describes taken, skipped, firstKept, and partitionName (67% coverage). The description reinforces the schema's parameter meanings by restating the pattern, but it adds little new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Remove Alternate Rows' and clearly explains the pattern: 'keep the first firstKept rows, then repeatedly take and skip.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_duplicates or skip_rows by naming the exact Power Query function (Table.AlternateRows).

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining the alternating row pattern, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The usage context is inferable but not directly stated, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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