format_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 the tool 'formats' a table, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what 'format' entails (e.g., overwriting existing formatting, requiring specific permissions, or potential side effects). No information on rate limits, error conditions, or output format is given, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('format a table') and key features ('borders, shading, and structure'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential details like what 'formatting' entails behaviorally, how parameters interact, what the output looks like, or error handling. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'borders, shading, and structure' which loosely relates to parameters like 'border_style' and 'shading', but doesn't explain any parameters (e.g., what 'table_index' refers to, what 'filename' expects, or how 'shading' is structured). With 5 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('format a table') and the specific formatting elements involved ('borders, shading, and structure'), which distinguishes it from other table-related tools like 'add_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'apply_table_alternating_rows' or 'highlight_table_header', which also affect table appearance.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing table), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'format_table_cell_text' or 'set_table_cell_shading', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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