docs_append_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains that a new paragraph is started, text is inserted after the current last paragraph, the document keeps formatting, and appended text is unstyled. It does not discuss permissions, errors, or length limits, but the core side effects of the operation are transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the operation, placement behavior, formatting result, and recommended use cases. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 simple two-parameter append operation with an output schema available, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, where the text goes, how formatting is affected, and when to use it. Missing auth details and error behavior are not critical for this straightforward tool.

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 identifies text as 'plain text' and makes clear that document_id refers to a Google Doc. It does not state whether document_id should be an ID or URL, but the parameter names plus tool context are sufficient for this simple two-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Append plain text to the end of a Google Doc.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like docs_replace_body by explicitly framing this as a non-destructive addition for logs, addenda, and updates that should not disturb existing content.

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 gives clear usage scenarios: 'Use this for logs, addenda, and updates that should not disturb what is already written.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing makes the decision context reasonably clear.

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