add_table

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates mutation ('Add') but does not explain side effects, coordinate system behavior, defaults, or whether existing slide content is affected. 'Enhanced formatting options' is too vague to be meaningful behavioral 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is under-specified for a 15-parameter tool, and 'enhanced formatting options' is filler that does not convey concrete structure or parameter relationships.

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 15 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral annotations, this description is far too minimal. It omits prerequisites, coordinate semantics, data input format, and formatting defaults. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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% across 15 parameters, and the description names none of them. It provides no explanation for required parameters like left, top, width, height, rows, cols, or slide_index, nor for optional data structure or color array formats.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: 'Add a table to a slide'. It also signals an additional capability ('enhanced formatting options'), which helps distinguish it from simpler table-related operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like format_table_cell.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as format_table_cell or add_shape. There is also no mention of prerequisites like requiring an existing presentation or how table dimensions relate to slide coordinates.

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