create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds: it states the success return format (v:{hash}), the error format (JSON with error/message), the side effect that file_path is created if missing, position insertion semantics, and format-specific output behavior (collapsed single-line GitBook HTML). This exceeds what typical descriptions disclose.

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a clean Args block. The only waste is minor redundancy: the format distinction ('html' vs 'pipe' with collapsed single-line output) appears twice, once in prose and once in the format parameter docs.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, all four parameters, success/error return shapes, side effects, and post-creation editing workflow. There is no meaningful gap for a create-tool of this complexity.

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 fully compensate — and it does. Every parameter gets real meaning: file_path includes the auto-create behavior, content includes a concrete pipe-table example, position explains 1-based-after semantics with -1 and 0 special cases, and format explains the enum values' behavioral difference.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new table in a Markdown file'), and the description further distinguishes this from the edit family with 'No version hash needed — this creates, not edits' while naming read_table and write tools as the follow-up. An agent can clearly separate this from replace_table, insert_row, and update_cells.

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 clear workflow context: use this to create (no version hash needed), then use the returned hash with read_table and write tools for editing. It explains when the hash matters and contrasts create-vs-edit, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as 'use this instead when X' — e.g., it never says to prefer replace_table for existing tables.

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