openl Append Table

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds that this tool only supports additions (not modifications or deletions), which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict anything, though it could mention consequences like potential duplicates or return behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a compact mapping for payload structure. Every sentence earns its place without extra fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and payload structure. It does not explain return values or error handling, but given the detailed schema and annotations, the description is relatively complete. A brief mention of what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds a summary mapping tableType to subfields, but this largely recaps the schema's oneOf structure. It provides marginal added meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add new rows/fields to an existing table (additions only)' and specifies what payload to use for each table type. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_table, so the agent can easily differentiate it from siblings.

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 when to use this tool (for additions only) and directs the agent to update_table for modifications, deletions, or reordering. This provides clear context on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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