insert_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the table is appended at the end and that it returns row and column counts, but omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, and what happens if values dimensions don't match rows/columns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and append behavior, followed by the return value. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, append position, optional pre-fill, and return value. It lacks only secondary behavioral details like permission needs or dimension-mismatch handling.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 2D values array and documentId. The description's '2D array of strings' mirrors the schema without adding constraints or format details beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Insert a table') and adds scope ('at the end of the document') plus the optional pre-fill behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_table or insert_paragraph, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to select it.

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?

Usage is implied by 'optionally pre-filled from a 2D array of strings', which tells the agent about one mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool (e.g. add_table, insert_paragraph).

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