add_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a table' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this modifies an existing document or creates a new one, what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary contextual information.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'filename', 'rows', 'cols', or 'data' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 ('Add a table') and target resource ('to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other table-related tools like 'format_table' or 'merge_table_cells', which would require sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple table-related tools available (format_table, merge_table_cells, set_table_column_width, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is for initial table creation versus modification, or when other table tools might be more appropriate.

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