select_table_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the mutation mechanism (replays the capture setup, re-points the search value), the side effect (the targeted row becomes ACTIVE), and the return shape {row_match, accepted}. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes, or behavior when no row matches.

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 purpose and single-paragraph, but dense with low-signal implementation trivia ('both length-prefixed strings in the genuine command', 'fixed-width') that taxes the reader more than it informs tool selection.

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?

An output schema exists so return values are arguably redundant, yet the description's real gaps are the six undocumented parameters and absent guidance on failure or precondition states for a 9-parameter tool.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description clarifies row_match, its relationship to captured_row_match and capture, and implies base_column, but leaves host, port, captured_value, commit_partner_field, and commit_partner_value entirely undocumented in both prose and schema.

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 opening clause states a concrete verb and resource: 'Position the active row of a table to the row whose column equals row_match.' However, the core purpose is buried under implementation jargon ('natively', 'length-prefixed strings in the genuine command', 'fixed-width'), and it never names a sibling tool to differentiate itself from add_table_row, copy_table_row, or delete_table_row.

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 explains how to verify a selection (assert_form_value) and how to chain into set_table_cell, but gives no guidance on when to select a row vs. an alternative approach, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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