table_add_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (adds a row) but offers no details on side effects, required context (e.g., active tested table must be in a certain state), interaction with the table's current row position, or any potential API limitations. The mutation nature is clear from 'Add', but more behavioral context would be expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, conveying the core action in a single clause without unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded with the action. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so while efficient, it is arguably too sparse to be fully effective.

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 description is grossly incomplete given the absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter documentation. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, the environmental prerequisite of an active table, or any behavioral details. With three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent has almost no basis to correctly set up the call.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description makes no mention of any of the three parameters (name, title, session_id). Nothing explains what these parameters control—whether they set cell values, identify the table, or specify session context. This is a critical gap for an agent to properly use the tool, as parameter semantics are entirely omitted.

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 uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Add a row to the active tested table'), identifying the primary action and target. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling operations like table_delete_row or table_set_field by focusing on insertion. The mention of the API and 'Insert / plus' adds specificity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other row manipulation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as having an active table, nor does it contrast with table_find_row, table_set_row_values, or other row operations. The context of being a new row insertion is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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