Apply multiple updates to a Google Doc in one request—insert, format, replace, or delete content.
Apply updates to a Google Doc (insert, format, replace, or permanently delete content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requests | Yes | Array of update requests as JSON string | |
| documentId | Yes | The document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that content can be 'permanently delete[d]', which goes beyond the generic destructive hint and warns the agent about irreversibility. It also discloses the range of mutating operations (insert, format, replace). No contradiction with 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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of operation types. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to understanding.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the destructive nature and scope of updates. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly note that multiple updates can be applied in one batch (though the tool name and schema's 'Array of update requests' already imply this), and it doesn't mention any prerequisite like the doc being editable.
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 fully documents both parameters (documentId, requests). The description's mention of operation types provides general context for what `requests` may contain, but it does not add any concrete semantic detail beyond the schema, such as request structure or documentId format. 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?
States a specific verb ('Apply updates'), the resource ('Google Doc'), and enumerates specific operation types (insert, format, replace, delete). This clearly distinguishes from docs_get (read) and docs_create (create), and the 'Google Doc' resource separates it from Slides/Sheets batch update siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it's the tool to use for any Google Doc modification, nor does it mention docs_get or docs_create as alternatives for read/create operations. Usage context is only implied by the name and description, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.