Append text to a Google Doc

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful context about the document eligibility model and end-of-doc positioning. 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 front-loaded sentence that puts the action first and then gives the essential eligibility detail. There is no filler, though the embedded dashes and clauses make it slightly dense to parse.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where it appends, which documents are eligible, and how to obtain the documentId. It does not mention formatting behavior like newline handling before appended text, but this is minor given the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by broadening documentId beyond the schema's narrower 'the document id from create_doc', explaining that list_drive_files is also a valid source for user-provided docs. The text parameter is not enriched beyond the schema.

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, resource, and position: 'Append text to the end of a Google Doc'. It also defines the tool's scope ('Hermoso can reach') and distinguishes it from siblings like append_to_sheet by naming the Google Doc resource explicitly.

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 clearly tells the agent when the tool applies — for any reachable Google Doc — and which documents qualify: ones Hermoso created or ones the user shared via the picker. It also routes the agent to create_doc and list_drive_files for obtaining the documentId. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives like update_doc or read_doc.

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