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 behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that the first row is treated as a header. It says nothing about whether the tool writes to a file or the live board, whether changes are undoable, permission needs, or what the result contains (the undo and warnings behavior lives only in schema property text).

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the row/header rule immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

Six parameters with 83% schema coverage and no output schema means the parameter layer is reasonably self-documenting, but with zero annotations the description should say more about side effects and target (file vs live board) for a content-creating mutation. Placement and page defaults are only in the schema, so the description is thin for the tool's complexity.

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 already high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining that `rows` is a list of rows of cell texts and that the first row is the header — a semantic rule the schema does not encode, which materially changes how an agent builds the input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a table of cells') plus the row shape and header-row convention, which clearly separates it from siblings like add_shape, add_code_block or add_image. It doesn't explicitly contrast with an alternative such as importing a table, so no sibling is named, but the purpose is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. An agent gets no signal about when a table beats add_shape or add_code_block, or what happens if a board is already open.

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