insert_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state it inserts records (mutation), returns JSON with inserted_count and RIDs, and provides an example. However, it omits important behavioral traits like permission requirements, schema validation, whether tables must already exist, or error handling behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, an IMPORTANT exclusion block, Args, Returns, and Example sections. It's slightly lengthy but every section serves a purpose, and the exclusions are essential. The front-loaded opening is effective.

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 and the presence of a large sibling set, the description covers purpose, exclusions, parameters, return format, and an example. It lacks explicit statements about table existence or column validation, but with an output schema present, this is reasonably complete. A small gap is the absence of prerequisites like 'table must already exist'.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly explains both parameters: 'table_name: Name of the domain table to insert into' and 'records: List of dictionaries with column values', plus a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Insert new records into a domain table' with a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from siblings. It further enumerates exclusions (datasets, features, vocabularies, executions, workflows, assets) with alternative tool names, providing clear sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool for domain-specific tables only, and provides a detailed 'Do NOT use for' list with specific alternative tools (e.g., create_dataset, add_feature_value, add_term). This gives the agent unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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