Coda Update Row

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond them: only specified columns change, column names must be used instead of IDs, and the call returns a requestId for async tracking.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then behavior, then routing, then return value. The first two sentences overlap slightly ('Update a single row' / 'Updates specific column values for one row'), but overall it is tight and every remaining sentence carries information.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: scope, partial-update semantics, naming convention, sibling routing, and return type. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a real semantic constraint the schema does not convey: 'Use column names (not IDs)' when populating cells, which directly affects how the agent builds the cells payload and links to the async requestId return.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a single row in a Coda table') and pins the scope to one row, which separates it from the bulk row tools in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'For bulk updates, use coda_insert_rows with key_columns (upsert) instead.' It also states the partial-update behavior, so the agent knows this tool won't clobber other columns.

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