wps_word_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: inserts at document end regardless of cursor, and creates a table with default gridlines/borders. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but the stated behaviors are clear. A more thorough description could mention idempotency or side effects on existing content.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences, yet it communicates purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. There is no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, and the workflow tip adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description is nearly complete: it specifies insertion position, border style, and integration with append_paragraph. It lacks explanation of default table formatting or constraints (e.g., minimum rows/cols), but for this tool, the description covers essential context adequately.

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%, and the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameters (rows, cols) are self-explanatory integers. The description does not enhance understanding of the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 inserts a table with borders at the end of the document, independent of cursor. It specifies the default gridline style and distinguishes itself by not relying on cursor position, setting it apart from any potential alternative table creation workflows.

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 explicit workflow guidance: use with append_paragraph to add a title before and content after the table. It clearly states when to use this tool within a sequence. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the simplicity and uniqueness of this tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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