Insert Table Rows (raw)

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

The description goes well beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It discloses that location-derived tableId can change when the table is relocated, that the response returns the current tableId and previousTableId when changed, and that the tool reads the table back to trigger recompilation. This is exactly the kind of operational behavior an agent needs to know and is not visible from the schema or 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core operation, then covers positional edge cases, the critical id-volatility behavior, and the recompilation side effect. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details that were already explained.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the insertion position semantics, the raw-source behavior, the volatile tableId and how to obtain the current one, the previousTableId field, and the recompilation trigger. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the critical parts of the response.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'cells' is a 2D array with rows and per-row cells, clarifies 0-based positioning with row 0 as header and column 0 as leading labels, and warns that tableId is volatile. It does not add much about response_format, but the schema already documents that fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Insert ONE OR MORE rows at position in a table's raw source'. It clearly distinguishes this row-insertion tool from sibling operations like openl_insert_table_columns and openl_append_table_rows by emphasizing position-based insertion, RAW source, and row-shifting behavior.

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 provides clear context: it works on the RAW source, works for any table type, and positions range from 1..height where height appends to the end. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, but the positional and raw-source details give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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