Append Table Rows

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

The description discloses that rows must match the table's column count, which is an important constraint, and states that it returns the resulting row count. However, with no annotations for readOnly or destructive hints, the mutating nature is only implied, and potential error handling, side effects, or permission requirements are not addressed.

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 compact and well-organized, leading with the core action, then detailing each parameter, and ending with the return value. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or fluff. The example is concise but illustrative.

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 mutating table operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, a validation constraint, and the return value. It falls short only in not addressing error behavior or the discrepancy that rows is declared nullable in the schema despite being 'required' in the description. Overall, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description includes a full 'Args' section that maps to all four parameters, explaining that workbook and sheet default to active, table_name is required, and rows must be a list of lists matching column count. It even provides an example. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the lack of schema-level explanations.

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 opens with 'Append one or more rows to the end of a table,' which is a specific verb (append) and resource (table rows) with a clear scope ('to the end'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_rows or set_range_values, and the title alone would have been ambiguous without it.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_rows or set_range_values. The description provides parameter details but no selection criteria, exclusions, or situational advice. An agent must infer that append is appropriate for adding rows at the end of a table.

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