import_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantial behavioral detail: in-place overwriting, exact row/grid-column matching with refusal and shape reporting, merged-cell anchor handling, rejection of merge-covered values, backup rotation behavior, atomic validated save, and refusal for documents open in Word. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 dense but not bloated; every clause adds operational value. It front-loads the purpose and then packs the mode, constraint, merge, and backup behaviors into compact sentences. A slight structural split between 'creating' and 'overwriting' could improve scannability, but there is no wasted text.

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 complex tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this description is highly complete: it covers supported data sources, insertion/overwrite behavior, validation rules, merged-cell semantics, backup behavior, atomicity, and error conditions. Because an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary.

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 compensate for all seven parameters. It explains the data input formats, the role of table_index, the meaning of at_end/after_anchor for insertion position, has_header for the header row, and backup=False for skipping rotation. The main ambiguity is that file_path itself is not explicitly described as the target document path, though it is strongly implied.

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: 'Fill a table from data', then enumerates the supported input forms and the two core modes (create new table vs overwrite existing). It clearly distinguishes this tool from creation-only or cell-setting siblings such as create_table, set_cells, and export_table.

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 explicitly frames when to use which mode: without table_index a new table is created; with table_index the existing table is overwritten. It also notes the Word-open refusal condition. However, it does not directly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related table manipulation tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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