Insert or delete a table row/column

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: side parameter defaults and mapping (after=below/right, before=above/left), that side is ignored for deletes, and that deletes remove the row/column containing the cell. It doesn't mention irreversibility, but the insert/delete semantics are clearly stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides precise parameter semantics without redundancy. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 structural edit tool, the description covers core mechanics thoroughly. It lacks hints about return values or prerequisites (e.g., table existence, cell uniqueness), and no output schema exists, but the main usage context is sufficiently 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 coverage is high (83%), but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the side parameter's effect with concrete directions and defaults, and by clarifying that the cell parameter identifies the target row/column. This enhances understanding of how parameters interact.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Structurally edit the table containing the given cell text' and enumerates the exact operations (insert/delete row/column). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_table (creation) and set_table_style (formatting).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to make structural changes to an existing table based on a cell. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when it applies.

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