Create or Edit Google Doc with Advanced Editing Modes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond stating it creates/edits. It fails to mention potential destructiveness of replacement modes (e.g., replace_all overwrites) or authentication requirements, leaving gaps beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is concise at three sentences, with the most important information (creation/editing, modes, formats) front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for quick 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, advanced editing modes), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on how modes interact (e.g., line_number requirement for insert_at_line). However, an output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 17%, the description should compensate for missing parameter details. It mentions edit_config modes and content formats but ignores parameters like title, content, document_id, and user_google_email. The schema itself has embedded descriptions for some parameters (e.g., edit_config), but the overall coverage is low, and the description does not bridge the gap.

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 tool creates a new Google Doc or edits an existing one, with specific support for multiple content formats and advanced editing modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_doc_content' (read-only) and 'create_drive_file' (generic file creation).

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 explains the tool's capabilities (multiple editing modes, content formats) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_drive_file' or 'get_doc_content'. It lacks direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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