insert_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that existing columns shift right and explains the recalculate/LibreOffice recompute behavior, but it omits any mention of the backup parameter, permission requirements, reversibility, or failure modes. This is partially transparent but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's effect and uses a clean Args structure. The only minor inefficiency is that the recalculate behavior is described twice, once in a separate note and again in the Args list, but this is not severely wasteful.

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 mutation complexity, the absence of annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is mostly complete for the core parameters. However, it fails to explain the backup parameter at all and provides no safety or permission context, leaving an agent without guidance on a potentially important option.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents five of six parameters (path, sheet, start_column, count, recalculate) with meaningful details like '1-based column index to insert before' and the purpose of recalculate. The backup parameter is left completely undocumented, which is a notable omission.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Insert blank columns') and immediately clarifies the effect ('shifting existing columns right'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_rows and delete_columns. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use insert_columns versus alternatives such as insert_rows or write_cells. The only conditional advice concerns the recalculate parameter, not the tool's overall use case. This is similar to the calibration example update_drive, which received a 2 for lacking when-to-use guidance.

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