create_table_docx

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. It says a table is created but not whether it requires an existing document, whether it appends to or overwrites content, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. Its brevity, however, leaves several behavioral and parameter questions unanswered rather than earning brevity through completeness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the definition omits preconditions, side effects, and the semantics of two of three parameters. Inadequate for a document-mutating creation tool surrounded by many table siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'data' parameter's 2D-matrix format; the meaning of 'file_path' (existing vs new file, format) and 'heading' (what it controls) are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Membuat tabel baru' = create a new table) and the source format ('matriks data 2D') plus target ('file .docx'). It is distinguishable from delete_table_docx and edit_table_docx by the 'create' verb, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives referenced. An agent is not told whether to prefer this over add_row_docx/edit_table_docx or what preconditions exist (e.g., does the .docx file already need to exist).

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