insert_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the version hash requirement (optimistic concurrency), that existing rows are populated with default_value (empty string if omitted), and specifies the exact return format on success (`v:{new_hash}`) and error (JSON with 'error' and 'message'). It also explains the position parameter behavior, including the -1 append default. This is thorough and transparent.

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 efficiently structured: it leads with the core action, then prerequisites, defaults, return format, and a parameter list. Every sentence contributes value – no filler or redundancy. The layout is easy to scan and front-loaded with the most critical constraints.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites (version hash), behavior for existing rows, return format on success and error, and explicit semantics for every parameter. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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% – the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: file_path as absolute path, table_index as 0-based from list_tables, version as 12-char hex hash after 'v:', name as header text, default_value as value for existing rows (default empty string), and position as 0-based index with -1 append right. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Insert a new column' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the requirement of a version hash from read_table, distinguishing it from sibling operations like insert_row, delete_column, and rename_column. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated.

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 explicitly states 'Requires version hash from read_table', which establishes the prerequisite context and implies when to use the tool (after a read). It explains position semantics and defaults, but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. This is clear context, though not exhaustive exclusions.

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