table_edit_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Return diagnostics' without clarifying what diagnostics include, whether a row must be actively edited, what happens when no row is edited, or if there are side effects. This is a thin behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, though the term 'diagnostics' is vague and could be more specific.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to define 'diagnostics', explain parameters, or differentiate from closely related sibling tools, leaving important context missing.

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 does not explain the meaning of 'table' or 'session_id'. The description adds no value for parameter understanding, leaving the agent to guess what these fields control.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('diagnostics for currently edited table row and its child fields'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like table_editing_state or table_current_row, but 'diagnostics' signals a distinct read-only introspection role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related table inspection tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active editing session. The intended context is only implicit in 'currently edited table row'.

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