docs_writeText

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether text is inserted, overwrites existing content, how 'position' is interpreted, or what side effects occur (e.g., paragraph creation, formatting changes). This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient to read. It sacrifices behavioral detail, but as a concise statement of the tool's core action, it is well structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is inadequate. It omits insertion semantics, return/confirmation behavior, and any nuances around tab or position handling, leaving the agent uncertain about tool invocation outcomes.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already says about the 'position' parameter; it does not clarify edge cases or numeric indexing details.

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 clear action ('Writes text to a Google Doc') and a scope ('at a specified position'), which makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like docs_replaceText or docs_formatText, so it only partially differentiates.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docs_replaceText or docs_formatText. The description implies a general writing use case but provides no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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