Create tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cell format and header behavior, which is useful, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. It also fails to note the array-wrapped input structure, which is a key behavioral aspect.

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 concise, with two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It includes essential cell formatting instructions without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 schema has decent nested descriptions, but the description misses the critical fact that the input is an array of table objects (`items`), not a direct `cells` array. It also omits any mention of return value or behavior for multiple items. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding and correct invocation.

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 says to pass `cells`, but the actual top-level parameter is `items`, an array of objects. It fails to explain this nested structure, potentially leading to incorrect invocation. While the schema offers some documentation for x, y, cells, and parentId, the description adds little beyond the header row note and may even mislead about the required input shape.

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 'Add a FigJam table and fill its cells,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_shapes or create_stickies by focusing on tables. The additional detail about cell structure reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage for adding tables but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, providing only implicit context that this is for tables.

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