figjam_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about prerequisites (active FigJam file), what happens when `data` dimensions disagree with `rows`/`columns`, default placement when x/y are omitted, or cell-count limits. Only the data shape is explained, which is formatting, not behavior.

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 short blocks, purpose first, format second; nothing is padded. The format example partly duplicates the schema's own row-major description, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

A 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover prerequisites and edge-case behavior, and it only covers the data format. An agent still cannot tell what happens on dimension mismatch or where the table lands if x/y are omitted, and nothing is said about the return value.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the 2D row-major array format with an example, adding mild clarification but not resolving the real ambiguity—how `data` length relates to the required `rows` and `columns`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource—create a table on a FigJam board—and adds what the tool is for (structured data display, comparison matrices). It is clearly distinguishable from figjam_create_sticky or figjam_create_shape_with_text by the resource named, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

"Use for structured data display, comparison matrices, and organized information" gives use-case context but reads as generic motivation rather than routing guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over stickies/shapes/code blocks, nor any prerequisite such as needing an open FigJam board.

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