Add table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety framing is covered. The description usefully adds that filling is optional and row-major, but omits key behavioral facts: whether data dimensions must match rows/columns, whether extra data is truncated or padded, and whether an element ID is returned for later formatting.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; the optional-fill detail is placed immediately after the core action.

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 with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The biggest gap is the rows/columns vs. data consistency contract, which an agent must know to call this correctly without a failed or malformed table.

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 33%, so the description must carry weight; it does explain the data parameter as a row-major 2D array of cell strings, which matches the schema's example. However, it never relates rows/columns to data (must they agree?) and says nothing about the four inch-based positioning parameters beyond their self-explanatory names and defaults.

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 ("Add a table to a slide") plus the optional data-fill behavior, which distinguishes it from the sibling element-creation tools (add_text_box, add_image, add_shape) by resource noun. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 on when to use this versus add_shape/add_text_box, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a slideId from list_slides, which only appears in the schema), and no note on when to supply data versus leaving the table blank. Usage is only inferable from the sentence itself.

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