wps_wpp_add_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool inserts a table and returns a shape_index, and explains why the indexing is needed. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shapes), boundary conditions (e.g., rows/cols >0), or potential errors. The transparency is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation 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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical context about the return value and indexing. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return value's role and indexing logic but does not cover defaults, error handling, or the format of shape_index. It also does not mention that size parameters (width, height) have defaults. While the core function is clear, some completeness is missing for a multi-parameter tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions including defaults (e.g., top=120, left=60). The description does not add any new meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 action (insert table) and the target (slide). It further explains how the returned shape_index is used with a sibling tool, distinguishing it from other table-creation tools like wps_word_create_table. This provides a specific verb+resource combination with sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly connects this tool to wps_wpp_write_table_cell and explains the unique indexing requirement for slide tables. This gives strong contextual guidance on when to use this tool (before writing to a slide table) and implies it is not for Word tables. A small omission is not stating prerequisites (e.g., slide must exist) or explicitly saying 'do not use for documents'.

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