Insert text in document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the insertion behavior and the location options, which is adequate for a simple insert operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior for invalid indices, or whether formatting is preserved, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation, the resource, and the two insertion locations efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 insert tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly: document ID, text, and optional index with a default behavior. It lacks only explicit alternative routing, but that is a usage guideline gap rather than a completeness 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description essentially restates what the index parameter means ('at an index or at the end'), adding no new semantic detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert'), a clear resource ('text into a document'), and a precise location scope ('at an index or at the end'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like google_docs_replace_text, google_docs_read, and google_docs_create, without needing to open the schema.

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 states the action but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as google_docs_replace_text or google_docs_batch_update, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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