Create a table

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the table is empty at creation, the API returns an objectId, omitted geometry results in a centered default, and position/size are measured in points. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and return value appear first, followed by related tool usage, geometry behavior, and styling guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (objectId) and the resulting table state (empty, sized rows/columns). It also gives enough context for follow-up operations, making it complete for an agent to invoke and continue working with the created table.

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; the description adds meaningful semantics on top: it clarifies that geometry uses points and that omitting geometry lets the API choose a centered default. It also confirms that row and column indexes used later for filling cells are 0-based, which helps agents use downstream tools correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's action: it creates an empty rows x columns table on a slide and returns its objectId. It also distinguishes table creation from sibling tools by explicitly routing cell-filling and restructuring to set_text/insert_text and edit_table, so there is no ambiguity about what this specific 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 provides clear workflow guidance: use this to create the table, then fill cells with set_text/insert_text, restructure with edit_table, and style cells via batch_update. It does not explicitly state conditions for when not to use it, but it gives enough context for an agent to choose the right tool in a multi-step table operation.

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