update_table_row

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the row index is 0-based, which is useful, but it does not explain whether values_json replaces the entire row or only specified fields, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. This is too thin for a mutating operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence about 0-based indexing earns its place. It is concise, though arguably the first sentence largely restates the tool name.

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 4-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It leaves values_json semantics, response behavior, and the relationship to table_id and file_id unaddressed, so an agent would likely need to guess about the required input format.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for index by stating it is 0-based. It does not explain file_id, table_id, or especially values_json, which is the critical payload parameter and lacks any format or usage hints.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Update a table row.' It is distinct from siblings like append_table_row and list_table_rows by its update semantics. The extra note about 0-based indexing adds precision.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as append_table_row, write_range, or list_table_rows. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferable.

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