office_table_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious side effects: on xlsx, 'add' writes the grid at A1 and creates an Excel table; on ods it writes onto the first sheet. It still omits whether 'set' overwrites existing cells, whether reads mutate anything, and what happens on missing tables, but the format-dependent write behavior is genuinely useful context beyond the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and every subsequent clause carries information with no filler. The second block is a single dense run of indexing and format rules without visual grouping, which slightly hurts scanability but wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, actions, indexing, and per-format write behavior. For a 9-parameter, multi-format tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the unexplained 'header' and 'value' parameters and the silent overwrite semantics leave clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most of the 9 params: it defines the action enum, documents the rows_json format with a concrete example, and resolves the 1-based vs 0-based conventions for table, row, col, and slide. The 'header' and 'value' parameters are never explained, which is a real gap for a table-writing tool.

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 concrete verb pair ('Read or write') plus the resource ('a table') and enumerates the supported file formats, so the agent knows exactly what domain it operates on. It does not, however, draw a boundary against the adjacent office_sheet_tool / office_slide_tool siblings that also touch xlsx/pptx content, leaving overlap to inference.

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 'action is read, add, or set' sentence implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick, and the format-specific notes hint at when behavior differs. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus office_sheet_tool, office_append_tool, or office_replace_tool, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., the target table must already exist).

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