copy_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and satisfies it thoroughly. It explains style matching, numbering, image/hyperlink re-registration, footnote/endnote IDs, bookmark remapping, OLE/ActiveX refusal with no partial application, source-file immutability, auto-backup behavior, atomic validated save, and refusal on documents open in Word. This is exemplary disclosure.

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?

Every sentence contributes substantive detail, and the primary action is front-loaded. The description is long, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the length. It is dense and uses many parentheticals, which slightly impairs quick scanning, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is highly complete. It explains parameter semantics, failure modes (OLE refuses whole copy), safety guarantees (source never modified), backup behavior, and operational constraints (refuses open Word documents). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 explain all parameters, and it does. table_index is defined with source-scoped 0-based indexing, after_index is contrasted with paragraph-only index used by other tools, after_anchor requires full plain text and rejects recurring matches, at_end is described, and backup semantics are clarified. Even source_path/target_path are inferable from the first sentence.

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 and resource: 'Transplant ONE table from source_path into target_path.' It further disambiguates itself as the 'single-element sibling of insert_document,' distinguishing it from copy_document and other table-related tools. This clearly identifies the tool's unique scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: copying one table between documents while reusing insert_document's resource reconciliation. It names insert_document as a sibling and gives precise target-position semantics. It does not explicitly list exclusions or direct comparisons with copy_document or split_table, so it falls just short of full alternative guidance.

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