insert_doc_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the dry_run parameter and returns a confirmation message, indicating mutation behavior. However, it lacks disclosure of required permissions, image size limits, or handling of invalid sources.

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 structured with a concise summary line and an Args list, efficiently conveying key information. It maintains clarity without unnecessary verbosity, earning its sentences.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameters but misses details like required permissions, image type/size constraints, and dry_run behavior (e.g., what 'planned mutation' includes). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section compensates well, explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., user_google_email, image_source, index). It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, though it could clarify image_source format further.

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 explicitly states it inserts an image into a Google Doc from Drive or a URL, providing a specific verb, resource, and source distinction. This differentiates from siblings like insert_doc_elements, which may handle other elements.

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 usage for inserting images but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., insert_doc_elements) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are given.

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