set_table_width

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Set', implying a mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting table layout), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral risks or constraints.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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 complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage guidelines, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'overall width of a table', which hints at the 'width' parameter but does not clarify the meaning of 'filename', 'table_index', or 'width_type'. Without this, the agent lacks understanding of what each parameter represents, leaving significant gaps in parameter semantics.

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 ('Set') and resource ('overall width of a table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_table_column_width' or 'set_table_column_widths', which suggests it might be for table-level vs. column-level adjustments, but this distinction is not explicitly stated.

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, such as 'set_table_column_width' or 'format_table'. It lacks context about prerequisites, like requiring an existing table, or exclusions, such as not applying to specific table types. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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