remove_bottom_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that it appends Table.RemoveLastN to the M query, which is a useful implementation detail. However, it does not mention reversibility, error cases, or any broader side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 transformation tool, the core action and target are described, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. The description does not discuss return values, edge cases, or preconditions, leaving it minimally complete.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate. It does clarify 'count' as the number of rows to remove and implies 'table' via 'the table's M query', but it leaves sessionId and partitionName without additional explanation.

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 ('drop') and resource ('last N rows'), and further specifies the implementation as appending Table.RemoveLastN to the table's M query. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_alternate_rows or remove_blank_rows.

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 makes the core use case clear (removing the last N rows) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as keep_bottom_rows, remove_alternate_rows, or remove_blank_rows. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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