split_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds substantial context: auto-backup behavior, the backup=False flag effect, atomic validated saving, and the refusal to operate on documents open in Word. It does not enumerate all failure modes, but it covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation. The second and third sentences add real behavioral value without fluff. Some terminology like 'prev/anchor slots' is terse but acceptable given the tool's audience.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the operation, row semantics, backup behavior, save behavior, and a key edge case. It could be more complete with explicit table_index and file_path conventions, but it gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most situations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain at_row meaningfully and partially explains backup behavior, but it does not explicitly define file_path or table_index semantics, indexing conventions, or expected formats. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but not every parameter receives added meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Split a table into two at a row.' It also clarifies the exact row semantics by stating that the specified row starts the new table. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like split_document.

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 clearly states the operation and gives a key usage constraint: it refuses documents open in Word, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives like copy_table or split_document, but the table-specific wording provides clear context.

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