Upsert Coda Rows

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent but non-destructive. The description adds useful context: it works only on base tables (not views), and returns the number of rows added/updated. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral cues beyond the structured fields.

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: a brief summary, a prerequisite hint, then clear parameter explanations with an example. It is concise with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (upsert with optional key columns, requiring column IDs), the description is complete. It covers the prerequisite, parameter format, base-table constraint, and return value. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the return.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `rows` parameter with a concrete example and clarifying the `key_columns` purpose. This goes beyond the schema descriptions which are concise but lack usage examples.

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 or update rows in a Coda table (base table only, not views)', specifying the verb (upsert), resource (rows in a Coda table), and scope (base table only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_list_rows, coda_get_row, coda_update_row, and coda_delete_row by focusing on the upsert operation.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Use coda_list_columns to get the column IDs first') which guides the agent on preparation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coda_update_row (for updating by row ID) or coda_insert_row (if available). The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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