google_docs_insert_textInsert text into a Google Doc at a specified character index or append it to the end using a document ID.
Insert text into a document at an index or at the end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to insert. | |
| index | No | 1-based character index to insert at (default end of document). | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / index / descriptionPrevious value: -"Character index to insert at (default end of document)."New value: +"1-based character index to insert at (default end of document)."Input schema / properties / index / minimumPrevious value: -0New value: +1v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / index / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. 'Insert' implies a write operation, but the description omits edit-permission requirements, effects on existing content or index shifting, and return behavior; only the default end-of-document location is stated.
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 with no redundancy, efficiently stating the action and insertion location.
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 operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the action and target location. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves mutation side effects, permissions, and response behavior undisclosed.
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 documents all four parameters. The description echoes the index-or-end behavior already present in the schema and adds no further format or constraint details.
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?
States a specific verb (insert) and resource (text into a document), plus the insertion location (index or end). This distinguishes it from replace_text and insert_table by operation, but it does not explicitly route among the docs-editing siblings.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer from sibling tools whether to use this versus google_docs_replace_text or google_docs_batch_update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.