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 behavioral burden, and it does not disclose that this is a mutation, whether the target table must already exist, what happens with unknown column names, or whether the operation is idempotent. Only the word "Add" implies a write, leaving error and side-effect behavior unexplained.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the context a mutation tool needs.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description says too little: return value (e.g., row index or label), default placement behavior, and failure modes are all unaddressed. The agent has enough to guess an invocation but not enough to use it reliably.

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 coverage is already 80%, documenting url, site, table, and position, so the schema does most of the work. The description does add genuine meaning for the undocumented `cells` object by explaining that keys are column names and values are cell contents, which is not stated in the schema, but it adds nothing for the remaining parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a table row") and clarifies the core payload semantics (cells map column names to values), which lets an agent distinguish it from table_get and table_update at a glance. It stops short of naming siblings or stating scope conditions, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 versus table_update (e.g., creating a row vs modifying an existing one), no prerequisites such as the table needing to exist, and no mention of whether the row is appended by default. The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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