Insert a 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 a key behavioral trait: 'A direct edit, not a tracked suggestion,' which is valuable for a mutation tool. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects on the document structure.

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, front-loaded with the core function, and every word contributes value. It efficiently covers the main usage and the direct-edit behavior without redundancy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is somewhat sparse. It covers the core insert functionality and positioning, but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how data relates to rows/columns constraints, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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?

The description adds meaning by explaining rows×columns and the 2D array for cell text, which aids understanding of the data parameter. However, schema coverage is only 67%, and required parameters like documentId, rows, and columns lack descriptions; the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps.

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 tool inserts a table with specified rows and columns, optionally populated from a 2D array. It is specific with a verb (insert) and resource (table), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like edit_table or insert_image, relying on the tool name.

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?

It gives context on positioning via 'at' and notes it's a direct edit, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_table. No exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, though the purpose is clear.

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