create-excel-table

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that errors are generated when the table cannot be added (e.g., invalid address or overlap). It does not contradict annotations. However, it could elaborate more on side effects, like whether existing data is preserved or overwritten.

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 two concise paragraphs: the first explains the core behavior and error conditions, and the second offers a tip with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 six parameters (four required) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, usage context, and error handling. It lacks details about the response format or any post-creation state, but for a creation tool with sibling guidance, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is high (83%), but the description provides additional meaning for the body parameter with an example: 'Body: { address: "A1:H171", hasHeaders: true }', clarifying that address is a range and hasHeaders indicates headers. This adds value beyond the schema's type and default declarations.

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 'Create a new table' and explains that it converts a worksheet range into a formal Excel table. It also notes that the range source address determines the worksheet, making the verb and resource unambiguous. The sibling differentiation is evident as it mentions being required before using add-excel-table-rows, 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?

It explicitly says the tool is required before using add-excel-table-rows, update-excel-table-row, and delete-excel-table-row, and warns of errors if the address is invalid or overlap occurs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as if a table already exists.

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