Insert Table Row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a bare one-liner that reveals nothing about side effects, error cases, index-out-of-bounds behavior, or whether the row is appended or inserted at a specific position. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 short, but it is essentially a tautology of the title ('Insert Table Row' vs 'Insert a row into a table'). It wastes the opportunity to add value, and while it is not bloated, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful.

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 complexity of the tool's context (sibling tools for table manipulation, multiple row/column operations), this description is grossly incomplete. It has no annotations, no output schema, and leaves both parameters unexplained. An agent would have no way to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing.

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 does not mention either parameter ('tableId' or 'index'). It fails to explain what 'tableId' refers to, what 'index' controls (insertion position?), or whether 'index' is optional. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a row into a table'), clearly indicating the action. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'insert_table_column' and 'create_slide_row' by focusing on 'table' and 'row'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it loses the top score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing table), context, or exclusions. The description simply restates the action without any situational advice.

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