batch_update_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses atomicity, dry_run capability, lists supported operation types, and shows example operations. It does not detail error handling or permissions but is fairly 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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, Args list, example, and return type. It is thorough but not overly verbose; however, it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (confirmation message), the description covers purpose, parameters, examples, and return. It lacks details on error handling, limits, or prerequisites, but is generally complete for a batch update 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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: user_google_email, document_id, operations structure with types, and dry_run behavior. Examples illustrate usage effectively, far exceeding minimal compensation.

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 it executes multiple document operations in a single atomic batch update, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like modify_doc_text or insert_doc_elements that handle individual operations.

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?

It implies use when multiple operations are needed atomically, and provides example operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a single operation) or mention alternatives.

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