docs_format

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries more weight. It notes 'Verified against the saved document' (adds some behavioral context) and implies mutation. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or what happens on failure. With no annotations, behavioral disclosure is partial.

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?

One long but well-structured sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with the action and target, then enumerates options. Slightly dense but efficient.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure), account parameter usage (covered by schema), or side effects. Verification note helps but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a little by listing the formatting categories but does not provide syntax or format details beyond what is in the schema. 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 (format) and resource (existing text in a Google Doc), enumerates the target selection modes (exact text, section, whole document) and the formatting actions. Distinguishes from siblings like docs_write/docs_edit; not a tautology.

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?

Implies usage on existing text, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs docs_edit, docs_write, or docs_replace. The selection modes give some context, but no when-not or alternatives are named.

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