Add Table

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

Annotations only include the title, missing readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description says 'add', implying mutation, but no details on permissions, side effects, or whether it overwrites existing content. With no annotation support, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single short sentence, achieving conciseness but at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the main action, but with four parameters and no additional context, it is under-specified.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, lack of annotations, and the existence of four parameters (three required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome, return format, or how the table is positioned in the document.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (filename, rows, cols, data). Although parameter names are somewhat indicative, the agent gets no guidance on how 'data' is structured or what constraints apply.

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 verb 'add' and the resource 'table to a Word document', establishing the primary action and target. It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings like 'format_table' or 'delete_paragraph', but does not differentiate from similar adding tools like 'add_heading' or 'add_picture'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 51 sibling tools, explicit directives when to prefer this tool over others (e.g., 'use format_table to modify after adding') are missing, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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