Append Table Columns (raw)

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

With only openWorldHint as annotation, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the volatile location-derived tableId, explains that the response returns current tableId and previousTableId when relocated, and discloses the non-obvious recompile behavior triggered by reading the table back. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main action first, then the data-structure contract, position semantics, the volatile-id warning, and the recompile side effect. Nothing is redundant, and the most decision-relevant 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?

For a mutating table operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, how cells map to columns, where columns are added, how to handle the volatile tableId, and what follow-up calls may see after recompile. It is complete relative to the tool's complexity and the sibling set.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema. It re-explains the 'cells' 2D structure in clearer terms, clarifies 0-based positioning, and explains the tableId volatility and response contract. While projectId and response_format gain little new meaning, the tricky parameters are well supplemented.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Add ONE OR MORE columns to the END of a table's raw source') and immediately distinguishes this tool from related siblings like openl_insert_table_columns and openl_append_table_rows by emphasizing END, columns, and raw source. It also clarifies the 2D 'cells' array orientation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: append at the end, works on any table type because it operates on raw source, and supports one or many columns at once. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the placement and raw-source emphasis provide enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it correctly in most cases.

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