Add HTML table to Docling document

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it parses the HTML, converts it to a structured table representation, and supports captions and footnotes. It does not disclose potential failure modes or what happens on invalid HTML, but it goes beyond the annotations enough to avoid a lower score.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct information. There is slight redundancy ('adds it to the specified document' echoes the first sentence), but almost no wasted words.

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 with an output schema and fully documented inputs, the description covers the core operation, the transformation process, and optional features. It lacks explicit usage guidance and error-behavior notes, but the overall context signals and schema fill most gaps needed for correct selection and invocation.

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% and examples are provided for html_table, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond repeating that captions and footnotes are optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Add an HTML-formatted table to an existing document in the local document cache.' It also explains the mechanism (parses HTML, converts to structured table) and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling add_title/add_paragraph/add_list_items tools. The name and description align perfectly.

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 when to use the tool: when you have an HTML table string and want to attach it to an existing cached document. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative sibling tools for adding other content types. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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