Import to Google Doc

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

The description discloses behavioral details such as automatic conversion and preservation of formatting, which are not in the annotations. It also warns about file_path memory limitations and recommends avoiding very large files. However, it does not explicitly state that a new file is created (vs. updating an existing one), though that is implied. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. It conveys all essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. The structure is efficient, with the main action stated first and operational hints provided afterward.

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 complexity of the tool (7 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the core function, supported formats, and important caveats about file handling. It does not mention the return value, but that is presumably documented in the output schema. The description sufficiently contextualizes the tool for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, including specific guidance for file_path and source_format. The tool description adds an extra hint about preferring file_path for batch operations, which is not in the schema. This supplementary guidance improves parameter understanding beyond the baseline, though the schema is already quite thorough.

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 action ('imports a file') with specific formats (Markdown, DOCX, TXT, HTML, RTF, ODT) and the result (into Google Docs format with automatic conversion). It distinguishes the tool by its conversion capability, which is directly relevant to the tool's function.

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 provides some guidance on parameter choice ('For batch operations, prefer file_path') but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like create_drive_file or import_to_google_slides. It lacks clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance beyond a single hint, so it is not fully explicit.

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