add_table

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. The description only states the core action without revealing side effects, such as whether the table is inserted at default coordinates, whether it replaces existing content, or if any permissions are required. It also does not specify what the function returns. This is a thin description with minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and object. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant content. It is perfectly sized for its purpose.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema covers parameter details. It does not, however, provide broader context such as how the table is positioned (e.g., relative to the slide coordinate system), whether it appends to existing content, or what happens after insertion. For a tool with this complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough—it leaves some contextual gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely states the general purpose. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 a specific action ('Add a table to a slide') with a specific resource (table). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_text, add_shape, and add_chart by naming the table as the object. The verb is singular and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a table on a slide) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like add_chart or add_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is sufficient for basic inference but lacks proactive direction.

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