Style text

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: only supplied fields are changed due to the automatic field mask, at least one field is required, offset indexing is end-exclusive, and offsets come from get_page. This does not contradict the annotations.

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 uses four tight sentences: one for purpose/properties, one for mutation scope, one for range offsets, and one for table cells. There is no filler, and the essential field-mask and at-least-one-field constraints are front-loaded.

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 complex 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the combination of this description and the 100%-coverage input schema tells the agent what to pass, how ranges work, when table-cell indices are needed, and where to look up offsets. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the automatic field-mask behavior, requiring at least one style field, and clarifying that start_index/end_index and row_index/column_index must be paired. Those semantics are not fully inferable from individual schema descriptions.

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 starts with a precise verb and resource: 'Styles the text of a shape or table cell', and identifies the underlying API operation (batchUpdate updateTextStyle). It enumerates the style traits, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling content tools such as set_text, insert_text, and replace_text.

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?

It gives clear call conditions: style a whole text object by default, style a range with start_index/end_index, and style a table cell by adding row_index/column_index. It also points to get_page for offsets, but it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or contrasts it with the sibling text-content tools.

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