delete_table_row

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Delete a row' and mentions a confirmation return. It does not warn about irreversibility, required preconditions, index base, or side effects.

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 docstring is compact and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. The main action is front-loaded, and every line serves a purpose without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a simple three-parameter delete operation, the description provides a workable minimum: it names the action, defines all inputs, and states the return. However, it omits important invocation context such as indexing convention, irreversibility, and behavior when row or table does not exist.

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 compensates by explaining all three parameters. Notably, doc_id is tied to open_document, and both indexes are described. It could add precision by noting whether indexes are zero-based, but it still adds clear 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?

Description states a precise operation ('Delete a row from a table') with a specific resource. The verb and object differentiate it from siblings like delete_table_column and add_table_row, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how this tool differs from other table manipulation tools. An agent gets parameter lists but no context for choosing this over siblings like delete_table_column or add_table_row.

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