word_insert_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (insert table after paraId) and optional seeding, which is helpful. However, it does not mention the default track_changes behavior, potential side effects such as modifying the document structure, or any required permissions. The schema covers track_changes, but the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, location, and optional behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 that the schema fully documents all six parameters and there is no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the tool's purpose and key behavior. It does not need to repeat parameter details. However, it could mention the file type (.docx) or any side effects, but those are either in the schema or not critical for invocation, so it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic clarity by explicitly referencing 'after a given paraId' and 'optionally seeded with cell text', which helps the agent understand the role of after_para_id and data beyond their schema descriptions. This adds incremental value.

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 specific verb 'Insert' with the resource 'a new table' and the location constraint 'after a given paraId'. It also mentions the optional 'seeded with cell text' behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_insert_paragraphs or word_edit_table_cells.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with any sibling tool. The only implied usage is the need for a valid paraId, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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