add_table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses title-row merging and default free-room placement, but omits whether it mutates the active document/sheet, what happens on collision, permissions, return values, and error behavior.

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 dense but appropriately sized and front-loads the rows mode before gear mode. However, it reads as one long run-on sentence with inline nested field lists, and it does not lead with a clear action statement.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves out two top-level parameters and operational context such as which sheet/document is targeted. The gear detail is useful but does not make the definition complete enough for reliable 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 document six parameters. It covers rows, title, at, and many gear subfields with defaults, but completely omits text_height_mm and column_widths_mm, leaving a significant gap.

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 names the resource ('a table on the sheet') and separates two modes (rows vs gear), but it never states an explicit verb such as 'adds' or 'creates'. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_note or add_symbol; the tool name carries most of the action meaning.

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?

It explains gear table variants ('spur' or 'bevel'), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_note, add_symbol, or drawing annotation tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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