docs_insert_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the table is empty and inserted at the end, but does not mention side effects such as permanent document modification, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action.

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?

The tool is simple, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description covers the core purpose and location. However, the absence of an output schema and annotation means the description takes on more responsibility for explaining return behavior, which it does not address, so slightly less 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?

The input schema describes all four parameters (account, document_id, rows, columns) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'insert' with direct object 'an empty table' and location 'at the end of a Google Doc,' clearly defining the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling docs_append, which appends text/content, by specifying table insertion.

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 implies the use case of adding a table to a document's end but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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