create_table_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, whether it creates something permanent or temporary, what happens on failure, or any behavioral characteristics. The single sentence provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'creates'.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence. While this represents under-specification rather than true conciseness, from a structural perspective it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though the extreme brevity creates significant information gaps.

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 complexity implied by nested objects in the schema, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. A tool that creates table layouts with complex row structures and options needs more context about what it actually produces, how it integrates with the system, and what behavioral characteristics it has. The current description leaves the agent guessing about critical aspects of tool behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('rows' and 'options') adequately. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters - it doesn't explain what constitutes valid rows data, what options are available, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'テーブルレイアウトを作成します' (Creates a table layout) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_table_layout' in Japanese. While it does specify the verb 'creates' and resource 'table layout', it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like create_form_layout, create_group_layout, etc.) or provide any specific details about what kind of table layout is being created or in what context.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other layout creation tools (create_form_layout, create_group_layout) and related tools (add_layout_element, update_form_layout), the agent receives no indication of the specific use case, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar tools.

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