insert_table_column

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 mentions column indices are 0-based, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like mutation effects (e.g., whether this modifies the document permanently), error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise clarification about column indices. Both sentences are necessary and add value without any waste, making it efficiently 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 the tool's moderate complexity (mutation of a document table), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, which are needed for full agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'column_index' is 0-based, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('insert') and resource ('a new column into an existing table'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_table' or 'insert_table_row', which would require 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'insert_table' for creating tables or 'delete_table_column' for removal. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, offering only basic operational details.

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