Style an existing table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a direct edit (not a tracked suggestion), scope determines which cells are affected (table/row/column/cell), and table location is by cell text. This goes beyond the structured schema. It doesn't mention side effects like undo, permissions, or error behavior, but for a styling tool the disclosed context is solid.

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 succinct (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, scope semantics, and a concrete use case. No filler or repetition of schema properties. This is an example of efficient, well-structured tool documentation.

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 8 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior (what it edits, how it locates the table, scope logic, direct-edit nature). The schema handles parameter details. Missing context includes edge cases like table not found or multiple matches, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'scope' behavior (which cells padding/background hit) and specifying units (pt, hex) for padding and colors. This extra semantic value justifies a 4, though many parameters remain adequately described by the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Edit style/layout of an existing table.' It names concrete style aspects (cell padding, background color, column widths) and explains the locator mechanism ('located by any cell’s text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_table (content editing) and set_style (general style).

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 provides useful usage context: 'A direct edit, not a tracked suggestion' explicitly tells when to avoid this tool (if you need a suggestion). It also gives a concrete example use case ('Fixes e.g. thin left padding that clips the first letter of cells'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the suggestion contrast.

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