insert_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses merge-cell widening, auto-backup rotation details, atomic validated saves, and refusal when the document is open in Word. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, merge behavior, backup behavior, and failure condition are densely packed. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/default values.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is unusually complete: it covers position semantics, backup behavior, merge interaction, save guarantees, and a key refusal condition. It only lacks explicit routing to sibling tools and expansion of count/width_pt semantics.

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 description adds important meaning for `at` (before position, append when equal to column count) and `backup` (skip rotation only when false). However, with 0% schema coverage, `count`, `width_pt`, `file_path`, and `table_index` remain only minimally inferable from names/types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Insert grid columns') plus the precise insertion position semantics. The behavior is distinct from sibling tools like insert_rows and delete_columns.

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 implies its use case—inserting table columns—but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like insert_rows or set_column_widths. It gives clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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