google_docs_delete_rangeDelete a specified range of content from a Google Docs document by document ID and start/end indices, enabling precise text removal for automated document editing.
Delete a range of content from a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| endIndex | Yes | 1-based end index (exclusive). | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID. | |
| startIndex | Yes | 1-based start index (inclusive). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / endIndex / descriptionPrevious value: -"0-based end index (exclusive)."New value: +"1-based end index (exclusive)."Input schema / properties / endIndex / minimumPrevious value: --9007199254740991New value: +2Input schema / properties / startIndex / descriptionPrevious value: -"0-based start index (inclusive)."New value: +"1-based start index (inclusive)."Input schema / properties / startIndex / minimumPrevious value: --9007199254740991New value: +1v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive mutation but says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or how document indices shift after a deletion, which is the single most important behavioral fact for a range-delete 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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting behavior an agent needs rather than from disciplined editing.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description should warn about index invalidation after deletion and about the operation being irreversible, and it covers neither.
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%, and the schema already documents that startIndex is 1-based inclusive and endIndex is 1-based exclusive. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a range of content from a document'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings that can also remove content, such as google_docs_batch_update or google_docs_replace_text.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus google_docs_batch_update or google_docs_replace_text, and no statement of prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.