add_table_row

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

No annotations provided; the description only states the action without revealing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires the document to be saved, or affects other parts of the document. For a mutation tool, this lack of disclosure is a significant gap.

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, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter descriptions following. No unnecessary information; every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, simple action), the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description does not leverage it to explain return values.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that table_index is 0-based and data is an optional list of cell values. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more parameter explanation could be provided. The description does not explain the format of cell values or constraints.

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 a row to an existing table,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_table (which creates a table) and delete_table_row (which removes a row), though not explicitly mentioned.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., document must be open, table must exist), and no exclusions provided. The description assumes the user already knows the context.

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