update_google_doc

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

Discloses dry_run behavior and force parameter but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether content replaces or appends. Annotations are absent, so the description partially fulfills the burden.

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?

Efficiently structured: 2-line purpose followed by bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, and the safety note is prominent. No wasted words.

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, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core workflow and parameters, but could mention the linking prerequisite. Slightly incomplete for a 4-param tool with no annotations.

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?

All four parameters are described with purpose and constraints (e.g., dry_run defaults to True, force overwrites). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Upload content from a local file to its linked Google Doc,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update_doc or insert_doc_elements by focusing on local file upload to a pre-linked doc.

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?

Explicitly mentions the dry_run default and requirement to set it to False for actual updates, providing safety guidance. However, it does not compare directly with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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