tabla

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that values are stored as text, preserving signs and hyphens — but says nothing about whether this is a write/mutating operation, permission or document-state requirements, what happens if coordinates or size are omitted, or how the table interacts with existing slide content.

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 dense sentence with no filler, but it front-loads cosmetic styling detail rather than the core action of creating a table. It is compact and readable, though the most decision-relevant information (what the tool actually does) is buried mid-sentence.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits positioning/sizing behavior, the header toggle, defaults, and any sibling differentiation — an agent would need to read the schema and guess about the rest before calling it safely.

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 a middling 56% (y, alto, ancho, and encabezado are undocumented) and the description never names a single parameter nor adds meaning beyond the prose about alignment and text storage. The alignment sentence gestures at the first-row header concept but never ties it to encabezado=true, leaving the coverage gap uncompensated.

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 identifies the resource (a table with theme styling) and details its formatting (header color, bold title, card-color cells, alignment), but never states the action explicitly — it is only implied that a table is created on a slide. It also gives no hint of how it differs from close siblings like diapositiva_tabla, tabla_estructura, or editar_celdas, so an agent cannot cleanly route between them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling handles the alternative case (e.g. diapositiva_tabla for a slide-level table layout vs. this tool). The reader is left to infer usage entirely from the styling description.

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