update_rows_by_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose how key matching works, what happens to non-matching rows, whether updates overwrite entire rows or merge fields, or the purpose of dry_run and include_changes parameters. The description is essentially a restatement of the action rather than an explanation of its 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 moderate-high complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the effects of parameters like dry_run and include_changes. A tool performing updates by key should clarify the update semantics and safety mechanisms.

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 0%, yet the description only hints at key_column by mentioning 'named key column.' It does not explain the structure of 'updates', the role of 'expected_structure_token', the meaning of 'dry_run', or the format of 'header_row'. With eight parameters and no parameter descriptions, this is insufficient compensation.

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 a specific action ('Update existing table rows') and a distinguishing method ('using a named key column'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like append_table_rows (insert) and upsert_excel_table_rows (insert-or-update) by explicitly limiting to existing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool might be preferred. For example, nothing contrasts it with upsert_excel_table_rows or append_excel_table_rows, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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