table_editing_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return whether' implies a non-mutating read, which is helpful, but the description doesn't disclose the return format, behavior when no table matches, or whether the tool requires an active table context.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point because the brevity comes at the cost of any parameter or usage context, so it reads as under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 operation itself is simple, but with no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with the correct arguments or interpret the result.

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 names none of the three parameters (name, title, session_id). An agent has no way to know which parameter identifies the table or how title/session_id affect the query.

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 specific verb ('Return whether') and a clear resource ('form table is currently in edit mode'). It communicates a state-query operation and is distinguishable from editing tools like table_begin_edit/table_end_edit, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer it's a read-only state check, but not how it relates to table_edit_info or table_begin_edit/table_end_edit.

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