docs_delete_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious deletion operation, without revealing crucial details like index base (zero-based), whether the end index is exclusive, the irreversibility of the action, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is terse to the point of omission, though that is penalized in other dimensions rather than this one.

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 no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an opaque output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the indexing model, required permissions, return value, or potential side effects, making it nearly impossible for an AI agent to invoke correctly without additional external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The parameters (document_id, start_index, end_index) are named but not explained. The phrase 'range of content' vaguely hints at indices but provides no specifics on units, inclusivity, or constraints, leaving the agent without the necessary semantic context.

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 (delete) and the specific resource (a range of content in a Google Doc). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_delete_table_row, as it is the generic text-range deletion tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as docs_find_replace for replacing specific text or docs_batch_update for combined operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when this tool is preferred.

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