src_output_set_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 useful limits (max 6 output tables, max 128 outputs) and states the return value ('Returns: Output definition'). However, it does not reveal whether an existing table output is overwritten, how validation failures behave, or any permission/side-effect information.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting usage hints in short, scannable sentences. The 'Module: set table output' line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, limits, prerequisites, and return value. It is reasonably complete for a configuration-style setter, though it could clarify create-vs-update semantics for an existing output key.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting parameters to prerequisite tools: agents_list indexes relates to `index`, src_keys_list with srcOutputs relates to `key`, and it adds aggregate limits beyond the per-parameter schema constraints.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Define a table output that users see in the Results tab.' It distinguishes itself as a table-specific setter among sibling output setters, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with bool/int/string/file variants.

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 clear contextual guidance by naming prerequisite tools: use agents_list for agent indexes, src_keys_list for output keys, and src_sample for understanding FSM/IO interaction. It implies the tool is for defining table outputs, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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