Set table

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining the create-vs-modify branch keyed on `name` and the requirement that a new table's range carry a header row of unique text labels, which the schema does not state. It stops short of describing the effects of resizing an existing table on its data.

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 create/change split before the routing mechanics. Efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical header-row caveat slightly sprawls.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing create-vs-update semantics and new-table prerequisites. Only gaps are the effects of resizing/deleting on existing table contents and the under-documented `sheet`/`path` params.

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 only 40%, but the two key parameters (`name`, `range`) are well described in the schema itself, and the description largely restates them. It reinforces the `name`-drives-create-or-update semantics and maps 'options, calculated columns and totals' to the options sub-object, but the thin `sheet` and `path` params remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Create a table, or change one') and enumerates scope (options, calculated columns and totals, resizing). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_pivot_table or format_range, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Clear context for behavior: an existing table of that name is changed, otherwise range makes a new one. This tells the agent how the tool routes without needing an alternative tool, but it doesn't state when to prefer it over write_range/format_range for similar tasks.

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