Append Table Rows (raw)

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: it operates on raw source, uses 0-based positioning (row 0 is header), explains id volatility (location-derived id changes when the table relocates), notes that the studio does not auto-compile and that this tool triggers a recompile, and details the response fields (tableId and previousTableId). This provides thorough transparency for an agent.

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 moderately long but efficient; each sentence adds value (e.g., id volatility, recompile behavior). It is front-loaded with the main action and uses clear structure. While it could be slightly more concise, the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 tool's complexity (id changes, recompile, raw source operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: how to structure cells, id handling, and side effects. However, it does not describe the complete response structure (e.g., whether it returns the table data) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the cells structure as a '2D array', shows how to use '{ value: null }' for blanks, describes row/column orientation, and clarifies the behavior of tableId when it changes. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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 'Add ONE OR MORE rows to the END of a table's raw source.' It specifies the verb 'add', the resource 'rows', and the location 'end', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_insert_table_rows or openl_append_table_columns. The mention of 'raw source' and 'any table type' further clarifies its scope.

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 implies usage for appending rows to the end of a table but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives (e.g., openl_insert_table_rows for inserting at a specific position). It mentions that it operates on raw source, which indirectly hints at limitations, but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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