add_static_row

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

With no annotations, the description provides extensive behavioral details: cells list length behavior, naming convention for textboxes, uniqueness requirement for row_name, default append for position, and default height. It fully discloses what happens during invocation, covering all critical aspects.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter details and behavioral constraints. No redundant information, efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It covers all parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage context. For a 6-parameter tool, it leaves no significant gaps, enabling correct selection and invocation.

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 compensates fully. It explains cells (list of strings, per column, behavior on size mismatch), row_name (textbox naming, uniqueness), position (0-indexed, default appends), and height (default 0.25in). Path and tablix_name are standard but clear from context. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a static (no-group) row to a tablix.' It specifies that cells hold literal text, distinguishing it from grouped rows (add_row_group) or subtotal rows (add_subtotal_row). This precise verb-resource pairing with differentiation makes it highly clear.

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 explains that the row is static and no-group, implying it should be used for literal text rows. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like add_row_group or add_subtotal_row. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, hence a 4.

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