Delete Table Row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details about side effects, such as whether deletion is permanent, how it affects row indices or cell references, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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 concise sentence, which is easy to read and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified given the lack of parameter descriptions and behavioral context. It earns its place but does not leverage the brevity to add needed details.

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?

With 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It fails to clarify important aspects like how the row is identified, return behavior, or error conditions. The tool is simple but still requires more context for safe usage.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It doesn't explain what 'index' represents (e.g., zero-based, row number), or what 'tableId' refers to beyond the name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 'Remove a row from a table' clearly identifies the action (remove) and the target resource (a row in a table). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_table_column by specifying 'row', and from insert_table_row by stating 'remove'. While it doesn't elaborate on which table or how the row is identified, this is sufficient for basic purpose clarity.

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. It doesn't mention when it's appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), or situations where other operations like delete_table_column or clear_slide might be more suitable. No contextual hints are given.

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