modify_doc_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains behavior like text insertion vs replacement based on start_index and end_index, optional formatting, and dry_run returning planned mutations. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., out-of-range indices) and side effects on existing formatting not specified.

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 with a clear opening sentence followed by an Args section. It is somewhat lengthy due to many parameters, but each line is informative. The purpose is front-loaded, though some parameter descriptions could be 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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, 3 required, output schema exists) and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and return type. However, it lacks details on error handling, permission requirements, and limitations, making it slightly incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 provides all parameter meaning. Each parameter is documented in detail, explaining its role, default values, and behavior (e.g., 'end_index' omitted means text insertion). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool modifies text in a Google Doc, with capabilities to insert/replace text and apply formatting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like batch_update_doc or insert_doc_elements by focusing specifically on text modifications within a single operation.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or context for selecting among similar tools like update_google_doc or insert_doc_elements.

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