create_table

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (create a table) and the return behavior ('Table creation confirmation'), which is helpful. But it does not disclose where the table is inserted (e.g., cursor position), validation rules for rows/cols, or any side effects on the document.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is a lean, readable mapping of all four parameters with no redundant filler. The Returns line closes it efficiently. Every sentence 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers parameters and return but omits behavioral context like insertion point, validation ranges, or what happens if data dimensions mismatch. An output schema exists, which may explain the return value, but it is not provided here, so the description alone is not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining every parameter: doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document', rows/cols are counts, and data is an optional 2D array of initial cell values. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema. Slightly more detail on data constraints (e.g., must match rows/cols) would push it to 5.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a new table in the document.' This is immediately distinct from siblings like add_table_row, merge_table_cells, and get_tables, which all operate on or inspect existing tables. The doc_id prerequisite from open_document further anchors the operation.

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 description implies the use case: call this when you need a new table. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as when converting existing text to a table via text_to_table. The doc_id hint implies a prerequisite but does not provide selection guidance.

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