Insert or delete a table row/column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral details: how `op` selects the operation, how `side` controls insert position (with defaults and mapping for rows/columns), and that `side` is ignored for deletes. It also clarifies that deletes remove the row/column containing `cell`. However, it does not discuss side effects like formatting loss or whether insertions copy styles, leaving some 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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter logic, then deletion behavior. No redundant or wordy content; every sentence adds necessary context.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, 4 enums, and no output schema. The description covers the core operational logic (op, side, cell targeting) and leaves other parameters (tab, page, segment, account) to the schema, which adequately documents them. It does not mention what happens to the document after the edit, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 covers 88% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the key role of `cell` as the locator for the target row/column, and clarifies the `side` parameter's mapping and default behavior, which goes beyond the schema's basic description. This is especially useful for selecting the correct table.

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 the tool's function: "Structurally edit the table containing the given cell text: insert or delete a row or column." This specifies the verb (edit), resource (table), and scope (insert/delete row/column), and distinguishes it from siblings like set_table_style (styling) and insert_table (new table).

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: when you need to structurally modify an existing table identified by a cell's text. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for structural edits rather than content or style changes.

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