docs_insert_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that this is a mutating operation, how the index parameter affects insertion, or any side effects on existing content.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it's under-specification rather than true conciseness. It omits necessary details and doesn't provide any structural clues about parameters.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the role of 'index', constraints on rows/columns, or any edge cases. The presence of sibling insert tools and the lack of differentiation make the context incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage from the description. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving the meaning of 'index', 'rows', 'columns', and 'document_id' entirely to the schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 action ('Insert') and the resource ('a table into a Google Doc'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_insert_image by the resource type, though it doesn't elaborate on insertion specifics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, placement considerations, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate.

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