apply_table_alternating_rows

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

The description does not disclose important behavioral traits like whether existing formatting is overwritten, if header rows are affected, or that colors are expected as hex codes. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose effectively.

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 lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description omits critical context such as the effect on the document, any prerequisites (like an existing table), and the nature of the output.

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 mentions 'alternating row colors' but does not explain that color1 and color2 correspond to odd and even rows, nor does it clarify that they are hex color codes. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate.

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 the action (apply) and resource (alternating row colors to a table), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_table_cell_shading.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as editing cell shading manually or using other formatting tools.

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