table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It warns that creation/resizing mutates workbook structure, but other mutating actions like convert_to_range and toggling totals are not flagged. This is partial transparency but adds some value beyond the bare 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 description is compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear Args list, a Returns line, and a note. No unnecessary words or repetition; every section earns its place.

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 multi-action tool with nine parameters, the description covers all parameters, valid function values, and a mutation warning. It also has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. Minor gaps remain, such as per-action return formats and edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The Args block in the description thoroughly explains each parameter, including the valid aggregation functions for column_totals and the purpose of data_range, new_range, and show_totals. This compensates for the schema's zero description coverage, providing meaning that goes far beyond the raw property names.

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 explicitly enumerates all supported actions (create, list, resize, toggle totals, read data, convert_to_range) tied to the 'table' resource. This is a specific verb+resource formulation that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_subtotals or sort_data, which target different operations.

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 list provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, and the inclusion of multiple table-related operations implies it is the go-to tool for table management. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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