table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is purely an action-and-signature catalog. Destructive actions like delete_rows, delete_cols, and delete never warn about data loss, and there is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or return behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with a Korean category summary before the action catalog. Every clause maps an action to its parameters with no filler, which is efficient for an 18-action omnibus tool, though the raw catalog form is heavy to parse.

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 18 actions, 46 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers action-to-parameter mapping but omits behavioral guidance, destructive-action warnings, and any indication of return values. An agent can pick an action but not predict its effects or output.

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 only 33% across 46 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping which parameters belong to each action (e.g., create takes at, rows, cols, data?, frame?...). However, it explains no parameter meaning or format (what keys, expr, or data accept), leaving semantics largely undocumented.

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 states a specific resource (표/table) with the families of operations it covers: create, cell, merge/split, rows/cols, formatting, formulas, sorting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like char_format, para_format, and page, which operate on non-table content.

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?

It enumerates the available actions but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings (e.g., document, text), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The action list implies scope but never states selection conditions.

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