Insert Table Columns (raw)

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it discloses column shifting, table relocation altering the location-derived id, the response returning current tableId plus previousTableId, and the absence of auto-compile with the read-back recompile trigger. No contradiction with the openWorldHint annotation.

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 core operation, and every sentence earns its place: position semantics, cell array shape, raw-source guarantee, id volatility, and the recompile quirk. It is dense rather than brief, but the length is justified given the surprising id-relocation and compile behaviors an agent must know.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only an openWorldHint annotation, the description is remarkably complete: it covers operation semantics, coordinate conventions, cell structure, the id-change failure mode, response fields, and post-edit recompile behavior — everything needed to invoke it correctly and chain subsequent calls.

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 genuine value beyond the schema by clarifying the coordinate system ('row 0 is the header row, column 0 carries the leading labels' — so position 1 is the first data column), the cells dimensionality ('columns × that column's cells'), and instructing agents to use the returned tableId for subsequent calls.

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 — 'Insert ONE OR MORE columns at position in a table's raw source, shifting the columns at and to the right of it' — with the key scope qualifier 'Operates on the table's RAW source, so it works for any table type.' This clearly separates it from siblings like openl_append_table_columns (append) and openl_insert_table_rows (rows).

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?

Provides clear usage context: it operates on the raw source and works for any table type, and the position range '1..width (width appends to the end)' implicitly covers the insert-vs-append decision. However, it never names an alternative sibling explicitly nor states when-not-to-use conditions.

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