src_output_set_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool mutates/overwrites outputs with the same key, enforces a maximum of 6 table outputs, sanitizes the key, and produces an interactive table visible in Results or via agent_results_get. This is strong transparency for a mutating tool, though it does not cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and is reasonably organized. However, it contains some redundancy ('Module: set table output' restates the tool name, and the Results-tab rendering is mentioned twice) and a generic tip about src_sample that is more background than invocation guidance.

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 moderately complex with 5 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers key behavioral aspects: overwrite behavior, uniqueness/sanitization, the 6-table limit, and how to discover valid agent indexes and output keys. The output schema exists, so the return format does not need explanation. Missing error handling details are minor given the constraints already in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining how to obtain the index via agent_list, how to list existing output keys via src_keys_list, and why the returned key must be used. This goes beyond the raw schema and helps an agent fill parameters correctly.

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 action ('Define a *table* output') and the resource, and explains how the output is viewed and that existing outputs with the same key are changed. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling output-set tools like src_output_set_bool or src_output_set_files, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 practical context: use agent_list to find the correct index, use src_keys_list to see existing output keys, and returns a sanitized key that must be used. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool for table outputs.

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