add_subtotal_row

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details that unlisted columns get blank cells, explains header/footer insertion points, and clarifies the naming convention for columns. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but it is reasonably transparent for a mutation 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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, using precise language like 'appends' vs 'inserts' and clarifying naming conventions.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, prerequisites, and parameter details. It lacks mention of return values or error conditions, but for a subtotal row addition tool within a well-known context (report building), it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'aggregates' parameter (column and expression meaning) and the 'position' parameter. However, it does not describe 'path', 'group_name', or 'tablix_name', leaving their semantics implied. This is adequate but not fully compensatory.

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 appends a subtotal row to a row-axis group, specifies the aggregates structure, and distinguishes between header and footer positions. It explicitly mentions that the column names match textbox names used by add_tablix_column, not field names, which differentiates it from similar tools like add_subtotal_column.

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 a clear prerequisite (group must be added via add_row_group) and explains the position options with their behavioral implications. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_static_row or other add_ tools, which would improve clarity.

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