slides_insert_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifying the presentation, potential overwrite), required permissions, or the result structure. This is a significant omission for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters, so the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. It earns its place but does not provide adequate substance.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), default behaviors, or how the table is inserted (e.g., position, sizing). The description leaves critical context to be inferred from the schema alone.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter context. It does not explain the meaning of rows/columns, positioning (x_pt, y_pt), sizing (width_pt, height_pt), or required IDs, leaving the agent to guess what each parameter controls.

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 a table') and the target resource ('onto a slide'), identifying the primary purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish from other insert tools (e.g., slides_insert_image, slides_insert_shape) by naming the object type, though it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as slides_insert_shape or docs_insert_table. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where the tool would be inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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