insert_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data beyond the table's dimensions is ignored and that header bolds row 1, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity 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?

Three sentences efficiently convey the main action, constraints, and key parameter details. No redundant or vague statements. Information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (insertion location, column limit, data handling, header formatting). It lacks return value information, but that is often implicit for insert operations. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'data' as a 2D list and 'header' as bold row 1, but does not describe 'doc_id', 'rows', or 'cols' beyond their names. The non-obvious parameters receive adequate explanation, but the basic ones are left to inference.

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 ('Insert a table') and its location ('at the end of the document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like insert_text or get_table_cell. The constraint 'Supports up to 26 columns' adds specificity.

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 usage context by specifying the insertion location and parameter behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations beyond column count.

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