insert_xlsx_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new row is inserted, implying mutation, but omits key traits: rows are shifted down, the file is overwritten unless output_path is specified, and no mention of error conditions or requirements. The description fails to add value beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence, making it very concise. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it could be structured to include key behavioral notes. It is efficient but lacks completeness, so not a perfect 5.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, has output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect on other rows, the output behavior, or common use cases. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema for context, which is incomplete for nuanced understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema (e.g., row_index is 1-based, values are ordered cell values). Per the rule, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Insert' and resource 'new row in an XLSX sheet', making the basic action obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_xlsx_cell or delete_xlsx_row, which have distinct purposes, but the lack of distinction is not critical as the tool is uniquely named.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_xlsx_cell for modifying cells, delete_xlsx_row for removal). No context for prerequisites or typical use cases is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and name alone.

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