docs_insert_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the 1-based indexing behavior, which is useful, but does not mention side effects like shifting existing content or that this is a mutation. It is not misleading, but incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the essential indexing detail. Ideal for a simple tool.

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 only 3 simple parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It lacks details like format of inserted text, but these are not critical for the tool's straightforward purpose. Slightly above minimum viability.

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 'index' parameter semantics (1 = beginning), but does not explicitly explain 'text' or 'document_id', though their meanings are obvious from their names. Partial compensation for a simple parameter set.

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 (insert text) and the target resource (Google Doc), with a specific modifier ('at a specific position') that distinguishes it from siblings like docs_append_text. The index base clarification ('Index 1 = beginning') adds precision.

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 implies when to use this tool (when insertion at a specific position is needed) by contrasting with append/paragraph tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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