Append text to an existing Google Docs document by specifying its document ID and content, enabling agents to add new information without rewriting the file.
Append text to an existing Google Docs document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Text content to append | |
| documentId | Yes | Google Docs document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation to an existing document but does not disclose permissions needed, whether content is inserted at the end, formatting behavior, return values, or whether existing content is preserved.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and target resource.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents both required parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could say more about mutation behavior, permissions, or response expectations, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking a write operation.
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 100%, so both parameters ('documentId' and 'content') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('text to an existing Google Docs document'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like docs_create or docs_read, but the distinction is largely inferable.
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 only usage signal is 'existing' document, which implies appending rather than creating. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus docs_create, docs_read, or drive-related tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.