insert_row

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the row is empty and inserted at a specified index, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what happens to existing rows (shifted down?), whether the insertion triggers other side effects (like recalculation of formulas), or whether there are any limits. The mutating nature is clear from 'insert', but the behavioral detail is thin.

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?

A single sentence in Chinese is concise and directly states the core action. No filler words. The structure is fine, though it could be expanded slightly with a usage hint without violating conciseness.

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?

For a simple mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the target table (which table? the current one?), the indexing base, and any side effects. Sibling tools like delete_row and init_array_table suggest a spreadsheet context, but this isn't clarified. The description is adequate only if the context is obvious from the system, which is not guaranteed.

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 schema has only one parameter 'at' with no description, and the description adds the meaning 'specified row index', which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain the indexing semantics (0-based vs 1-based) or if 'at' refers to a row number in the spreadsheet. With 0% schema coverage, the description does add value but only partially compensates for the missing parameter detail.

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 the verb 'insert' and the resource 'row' at a specified row index, which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_row, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can understand what it 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like init_array_table or set_spreadsheet_cell, and doesn't mention any constraints or context (e.g., whether the row is inserted in a table or array, or after which operation it should be called). There is no exclusion or prerequisite information.

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