insert_rows

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the insertion logic (before specified row, 1-indexed) and mentions parameters like inherit_before (formatting) and dry_run (testing). However, it lacks information on side effects (e.g., data shift, formula updates), required scopes, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly verbose in the list, each line adds necessary detail. Minor improvement could be more succinct wording for some parameters.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly but omits return value details (except for dry_run) and fails to mention prerequisites, limits, or error handling. The tool is moderately complex, so additional context on what happens after insertion would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to fully explain parameters. The 'Args' section provides clear semantics for all six parameters: explains start_row as 1-indexed and 'BEFORE' behavior, defines count, inherit_before, and dry_run effects. This adds significant value beyond the schema's titles.

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 'Insert blank rows before the given row number', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_columns and delete_rows by focusing on row insertion. The description also details the effect of parameters like start_row ensuring no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with sibling tools like append_rows or update_range. The agent would need to infer usage context from the parameter descriptions alone.

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