add_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'tracked insertion' but fails to explain prerequisites, reversibility, error handling, or what happens if para_id is invalid. The behavior is insufficiently described.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose line. The parameter list is efficiently formatted with no extraneous text. Every sentence serves a 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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is not required to detail returns. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), and behavioral details like tracked changes scope. It is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

The description lists parameters with one-line explanations (e.g., 'paraId of the paragraph to insert after'), which adds minimal value beyond the schema titles. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but it only provides basic, self-evident clarifications.

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 'Insert a new table after a paragraph with tracked insertion.' It specifies the resource (table) and context (after a paragraph, tracked insertion), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_table_row' or 'add_list'.

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 in a tracked-revision environment but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not or alternative mentions are given.

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