insert_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility and does so well: it reveals auto-backup behavior, the effect of `backup=False` (skip rotation only), atomic validated save, and refusal on documents open in Word. These are non-obvious side effects and failure modes that protect the agent from surprise.

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 dense but free of filler, with the core insertion behavior first and supporting operational caveats following. Each sentence adds a distinct fact, and the unusual semantics (`at`, backup rotation, Word-open refusal) are preserved instead of buried.

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 mutation tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description covers the critical edge cases and side effects, and an output schema exists to document return values. The main missing context is the meaning and validation of `count`, but the default and name make its intent inferable.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the prose must compensate. It adds real meaning for `at`, `copy_format_from`, and `backup`, but leaves `count`, `file_path`, and `table_index` unexplained; `count` is the most significant gap because an agent cannot be certain whether it refers to the number of rows or another unit.

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 names a specific behavior—inserting rows before a given row—and explains the two key modifiers: `at` position semantics and `copy_format_from` behavior. This distinguishes it from row deletion (`delete_rows`) and column insertion (`insert_columns`), so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 gives clear situational context: rows go before the tracked row, appending when `at` equals row count, and copying format from a chosen source row. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like `insert_columns` or `set_cells`, but the row-specific wording and table-index requirement make the intended use evident.

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