slides_insert_table

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention side effects, position/size defaults, error conditions, or whether the operation is additive. This is a significant transparency gap 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 is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though that is penalized in other dimensions. Structure is acceptable for a simple statement.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain how the table is positioned or sized, or that it requires an existing slide context. This is far below the minimum viable description.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide any parameter details. It does not explain the meaning of rows, columns, x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt, or the IDs. The agent receives no guidance beyond the bare names in the schema.

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 'Insert a table onto a slide' uses a specific verb (insert) and a specific resource (table onto a slide). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like slides_insert_shape or slides_insert_image, which target different object types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond the basic action. No mention of prerequisites like needing an existing presentation/slide, nor any exclusions. The description is too sparse to help an agent decide between this and related insert tools.

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