add_table_row

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 discloses that the operation adds/inserts a row, that position defaults to end, and that a confirmation is returned. However, it does not mention side effects on existing rows, index base, or invalid position/table_index 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes useful information and the format is easy to scan.

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?

The essential invocation details are present, and the output schema covers return value expectations. Still, without annotations, an agent lacks clear information about side effects of inserting rows, positional edge cases, or whether table indexes are zero-based.

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 must compensate. It provides meaningful one-line explanations for all three parameters, especially clarifying that position defaults to 'end'. It leaves some ambiguity around zero-based indexing and bounds, but it adds substantial 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 and resource: 'Add a new row to a table.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_table_column, delete_table_row, and create_table.

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 purpose is clear enough to indicate when to use it, and the args provide useful context such as 'doc_id from open_document' and position defaulting to end. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but no closely competing tool exists for the same operation.

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