Manage tables

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description specifies exactly what delete destroys — the table definition only, not cell data — and discloses that expanding the range grows the table and that DROPDOWN adds a dataValidationRule. These are important side effects an agent needs to predict before invoking the tool.

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 organized by action and front-loads the feature identity. The inline JSON example is somewhat long but earns its place by showing the exact expected shape of column_properties, so nothing feels wasted.

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?

The description covers all three actions, required parameters, side effects, and how to discover tableIds. Since there is no output schema, the mention of the add reply carrying the new table is helpful, though update/delete response shapes and failure conditions such as duplicate names are not described.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains action-dependent parameter requirements, gives an explicit JSON example for column_properties, lists the allowed columnType values, and clarifies how the first row becomes the header. This goes well beyond the schema's generic 'raw TableColumnProperties list' description.

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 names the concrete resource — structured tables via the Convert to table feature — and enumerates the distinct actions: add, update, and delete. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like format_cells or manage_sheets by describing the named-range table feature rather than generic formatting or sheet operations.

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?

Each action has clear preconditions: add requires a unique name and range, update requires table_id, and delete removes only the table definition. It also directs users to get_spreadsheet for tableIds and notes that cell data must be cleared separately, implying the complement of clear_values, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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