Add RTL Table to Document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is an append and lists formatting details (RTL, header styling, shading, borders). However, it does not mention whether an existing document is required, how the file is saved, or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

One sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the action ('Appends'), immediately clear. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description plus fully-covered schema provide a clear picture of what the tool does and how to invoke it. The main missing element is explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., existing file), but the operation is simple enough that the description feels adequate.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it references styling and RTL but does not map them to specific parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Appends' and identifies the resource as 'a structured table with RTL layout... to a Word document,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle paragraphs, headings, images, etc.

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 usage for adding tables to Word documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude other scenarios. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks comparison.

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