Create a Google Doc

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

It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations: line breaks are preserved, formatting is lost, content is converted from plain text, and the return value is a document id plus open link. This is exactly the nuance needed for a creation tool and goes well beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint provide.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the key distinction ('not a text file') is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, including the return-value note.

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?

For a simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, formatting constraints, and return value. Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only loosely maps 'from plain text' to the content parameter and does not add new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a real Google Doc') and explicitly contrasts it with a text file, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_upload. It also tells the agent what the tool returns, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives a clear usage signal: use this when you need a real Google Doc from plain text, not when you want a plain text file. It does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly, but the 'not a text file' exclusion plus the sibling list is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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