append_paragraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses a mutating append operation and a confirmation return value, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, formatting effects, or whether the document needs to be saved afterward.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear action sentence, then neatly labeled Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant explanation; each line serves a 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?

For a simple two-parameter append tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, parameters, and return confirmation. The main gap is the absence of behavioral caveats like document-save requirements or error conditions, but no annotations exist to fill that gap.

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 0%, and the description adds some meaning: doc_id is identified as coming from open_document, and text is described as paragraph text. However, 'Paragraph text' is largely tautological, and no format, length, or newline behavior is specified.

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 action ('Append a new paragraph'), the target resource ('the document'), and the exact location ('to the end'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like insert_text or set_table_cell_text, which operate in other contexts.

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 gives clear usage context: appending a paragraph to the end of an open document, with doc_id sourced from open_document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite is evident.

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