set_table_template

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 conveys that this is a full template replacement operation in x-spreadsheet format, which implies wholesale overwriting, but it never explicitly states that existing configuration is replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and format are front-loaded before the usage note and skill reference. Every clause earns its place.

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 accepting a loosely-typed free-form JSON object with no output schema and no annotations, the description relies heavily on an external Skill file (table-building.md) to define the structure. If that file is not injected into the agent's context, the agent cannot reliably construct the x-spreadsheet JSON. The description is adequate only under the assumption that the referenced skill documentation is available.

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 coverage is 100% with a basic parameter description ('完整的表格模板 JSON 对象'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by specifying the x-spreadsheet format and pointing to the Skill file (table-building.md) for the detailed JSON structure, compensating for the fact that tableJson is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true) with no internal schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('设置完整的表格模板 JSON') and the format (x-spreadsheet), making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_table_template (retrieval) and copy_template (template duplication) by clarifying it sets a complete template configuration.

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 a clear usage context: '通常用于从已有模板复制表格配置' (usually used to copy table configuration from an existing template). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state exclusions, leaving the boundary against set_full_schema, select_template, and the incremental setters (set_property, set_form_settings) implicit rather than explicit.

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