highlight_table_header

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'highlight' but does not disclose what formatting changes occur (e.g., background color, text color), or potential side effects like overwriting existing formatting. The parameters hint at color customization, but no explicit behavior is stated.

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 very concise at one sentence, which is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 has three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the effect of the parameters, error conditions (e.g., if table_index is out of range), or the existence of an output schema. The tool seems to modify the document, but no behavioral context is provided.

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 adds no information about the parameters beyond their names. While 'header_color' and 'text_color' are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool does not specify color format (e.g., hex) or explain 'table_index' usage. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool highlights the first row as a header, making the purpose understandable. It specifies the verb 'highlight' and resource 'first row', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_table_alternating_rows' or '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, or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios, such as when a table already has a header or when to avoid using it.

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