create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, backup=False semantics, atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. These are meaningful side-effect and failure-mode details beyond what the schema shows.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the key alternative, then adds safety and side-effect context. 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?

The description covers safety, backup behavior, and the import alternative, but it leaves several insertion and formatting parameters unexplained. Because there is no annotation coverage and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is not fully sufficient for an agent to confidently choose and invoke all parameter combinations correctly.

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 parameter meaning. It clarifies that data is '2D string data' and gives backup rotation semantics, but it leaves at_end, after_index, after_anchor, header_row, width_pt, and file_path largely to inference. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 action and resource: 'Create a table from 2D string data with single-line borders.' It also differentiates from the sibling import_table by pointing out that CSV/JSON imports should use that tool instead. This makes the intended purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit alternative: 'To build a table from a CSV/JSON file, use import_table.' This tells the agent when not to use create_table for file-based data. It does not discuss broader placement or styling alternatives, but the main competing case is clearly addressed.

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