create-excel-table

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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-read-only, destructive-capable operation. The description adds an error condition (invalid address or overlap) and clarifies the address-to-worksheet mapping. It doesn't mention side effects like confirm-gate behavior (handled by schema note) or what the response contains, but it does add meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 two focused sentences plus a succinct tip. The core action is front-loaded, the error behavior is summarized, and the example is placed as a separate tip. No wasted words – every sentence earns its place.

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 (7 params, nested body, no output schema) and the schema's high coverage (86%), the description covers the essential use case, error conditions, and prerequisite relationship. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema lacks descriptions for the body's address and hasHeaders properties, but the description compensates with an explicit example ('Body: { address: 'A1:H171', hasHeaders: true }') and explains that the address determines the worksheet. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 ('Create a new table') and clarifies the relationship to the worksheet via the address. It clearly differentiates from sibling table operations (list/get/update/delete rows) by focusing on creation. The tip reinforces the purpose: converting a range into a formal Excel table.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool is required: before using add/update/delete-excel-table-rows on a plain-cells sheet. This gives clear context and a prerequisite. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the specificity of the prerequisite is strong guidance.

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