create_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, and it discloses almost nothing. "Create" implies a write, but there is no statement about permissions, whether an existing table is replaced, what happens to the target sheet, or any side effect. Only the implied mutation verb gives it any credit.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It loses a point for the trailing "from simple parameters," which is vague filler rather than useful information.

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 not be explained, and the schema fully documents the parameters. What is missing is behavioral context for a mutating tool with no annotations: placement/ordering of the created table, permission requirements, and overwrite semantics are all unaddressed.

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 100%, so all five parameters (title, columns, sheet_id, analysis_id, dataset_identifier) are already documented in the schema, including the comma-separated column format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond "simple parameters," so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Create a flat table visual"), and the word "flat" loosely differentiates it from the sibling create_pivot_table. However, it never names an alternative, and "from simple parameters" is filler that adds no specificity about scope or behavior.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the many sibling visual-creation tools (create_kpi, create_bar_chart, create_pivot_table, add_visual). The agent must infer that this is the right tool for a flat table purely from the name.

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