append_table_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Append a row' and 'Returns Success or error message', but fails to mention that it modifies the document, requires an open document, or what happens if the table index is invalid. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement up front and a structured listing of attributes. It omits unnecessary words, but could benefit from a brief usage note or example. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 an output schema exists, the description could be more complete. It does not explain that the table must already exist, or how the tool handles errors (beyond a vague 'error message'). The tool has many siblings with similar functions, and the description lacks the detail needed for an agent to decide confidently.

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 brief parameter explanations ('Index of the table', 'Optional list of cell values for the new row') that go beyond the input schema's type and title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it barely meets the baseline. The explanations are minimal and do not clarify data format 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 'Append a row to a table', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_table_row', which likely performs a similar function. This lack of distinction prevents an agent from selecting the correct tool confidently.

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 like 'add_table_row' or 'edit_table_cell'. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the table must exist) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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