docs_append_paragraph

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the paragraph is appended to the end, is fully-styled, and requires no index math. It also lists the supported styles. However, it does not mention error handling, return behavior, or implications for existing content, but for a simple append operation this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and advantage. It includes the necessary style enumeration without redundant fluff. Every sentence contributes value, making it highly concise and 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core functionality: appending a styled paragraph to the end of a doc. It does not detail the optional parameters (bold, italic, alignment, bullet_preset) or explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like docs_insert_paragraph, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'style' parameter by listing valid values (NORMAL_TEXT, TITLE, SUBTITLE, HEADING_1..HEADING_6), which is helpful. However, it does not explain document_id, text, bold, italic, alignment, or bullet_preset, leaving these parameters underspecified despite their self-explanatory names.

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 verb 'appends' and the resource 'paragraph', and specifies it appends to the end of the doc. It also explicitly mentions it is the 'RECOMMENDED way' to add headings/titles/subtitles/body paragraphs, and lists the supported styles, distinguishing it from other insertion tools like docs_insert_paragraph or docs_append_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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'RECOMMENDED way to add a heading/title/subtitle/body paragraph' and highlights the advantage of 'no character-index math needed.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the recommendation and the mention of the single-call append give sufficient guidance for when to choose this tool.

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