google_docs_insert_tableInsert an empty table with specified rows and columns into a Google Docs document at a 1-based index, adding a newline before it.
Insert an empty table at a model index (a newline is added before it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | Number of rows. | |
| index | Yes | 1-based index where the table is inserted. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| columns | Yes | Number of columns. | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / index / descriptionPrevious value: -"0-based index where the table is inserted."New value: +"1-based index where the table is inserted."Input schema / properties / index / minimumPrevious value: --9007199254740991New value: +1v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the inserted table is empty and that a newline is added before it, but it does not mention write permissions, what happens to existing content at the index, failure behavior, or the response shape.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical side-effect note is compact and useful.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains the core insert action but omits permission requirements, return behavior, and error or edge-case context an agent would need before invoking it.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as index constraints or account behavior.
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 and resource: insert an empty table. The word 'table' distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_docs_insert_text and google_docs_insert_inline_image, though the phrase 'model index' is somewhat ambiguous and no sibling is named explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_docs_insert_text or google_docs_batch_update, and no stated preconditions. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.