insert_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (adding a table) but doesn't cover critical traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not confirmed), permission requirements, effects on the document (e.g., overwriting content), error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral details like mutation effects or error handling, or output expectations. For a tool that modifies documents, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (rows, cols, height, width, section_index) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying a table is inserted—it doesn't explain what rows/cols represent, what section_index refers to, or how dimensions affect the table. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('현재 문서에 표를 추가합니다' translates to 'Adds a table to the current document'), specifying the verb (add/insert) and resource (table). It distinguishes from siblings like insert_image and insert_paragraph by focusing on tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_document which might also involve table creation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like insert_paragraph or create_document. This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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