update_google_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'regenerate' and 'update' but does not reveal whether existing content is overwritten, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, compact and to the point. It front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

The presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions reduces the need to explain return values and parameters. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuance about the regeneration process, making it adequate for simple selection but not fully complete for all invocation contexts.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; 'by ID' repeats the doc_id description, and 'regenerate documentation' is implicit in repo_path. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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's function: 'Regenerate documentation and update an existing Google Doc by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing Google Doc'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_google_doc (create vs update) and share_google_doc.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for updating existing docs, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or mention alternatives such as create_google_doc for new documents.

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