insert_table_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Row indices are 0-based', which is useful operational context, but fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a mutation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid indices), or what the output contains. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence clarifies a key parameter, and the third explains indexing, with no redundant information. However, the separation into three short sentences could be slightly more cohesive.

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 (table row insertion), no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and indexing but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) that would be helpful despite the structured data. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context on usage and behavior is warranted.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats 'table_start_index' definition and clarifies row indexing as 0-based (though 'row_index' schema description doesn't specify this). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 action ('Insert a new row') and target ('into an existing table'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'insert_table' or 'delete_table_row'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other table-related tools beyond the basic verb+resource statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_table' (for creating new tables) or 'delete_table_row'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., table must exist) or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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