insert_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one meaningful behavior: with header=true, the first row receives the accent background and white bold text. However, it omits other behavioral details such as where the table is placed, whether it appends or replaces content, or what side effects occur. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately brief, two concise sentences with the key input format and the most notable styling behavior front-loaded. There is no wasted text, though it prioritizes brevity over completeness, which is acceptable given the format.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, so the description alone must make the tool fully understandable. It fails to explain the required doc_id parameter, the meaning of size/color/accent, or the context of use relative to siblings. An agent would likely guess at several parameters and could misapply the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'rows' and 'header' (the header styling effect), but completely ignores doc_id, size, color, and accent. With 6 parameters and only 2 partially addressed, the description does not provide enough semantic grounding for an agent to confidently set all parameters.

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 verb ('Insert'), a resource ('a table'), and the input format ('a 2D list of rows'). This distinguishes it from sibling insert tools like insert_image and insert_text, and the '2D list of rows' detail clarifies what kind of table data is expected. However, it could be confused with add_sheet or style_cells without additional context.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_sheet, style_cells, or insert_text. The description does not state whether the table is inserted into a slide, document, or spreadsheet, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as having a document open or a specific mode.

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