manage_design_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions that parameters are driven from Excel and that design tables can be created or managed, but it fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether operations are destructive, required permissions, or side effects like overwriting existing tables. The description is too vague for a mutation tool.

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 sentences long, efficiently conveying the core purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, followed by a brief explanatory clause. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (1 required parameter that is a complex object with many options) and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the operations (create, update, import) work, or any additional context about the expected behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without deeper knowledge from the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that design tables drive parameters from Excel, but it does not provide additional semantics for the parameters beyond what is already in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Operation alias', 'Excel file path'). The description does not help the agent understand parameter relationships or typical usage.

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 verb 'Create or manage' and the resource 'design tables for parametric modeling'. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which are about sketches, extrusions, assemblies, etc., by focusing specifically on design tables and parametric configurations.

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 a use case (driving parameters from Excel for multiple configurations) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparisons to other tools.

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