insert_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies content ('Insert text'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, how it handles existing text at the index, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values) and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical context like side effects, error conditions, or usage examples, leaving room for improvement in guiding safe and effective use.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described (document_id, text_to_insert, index) and one (tab_id) lacking description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining index behavior (1-based) or tab_id usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Insert text') and target ('within a document or tab'), specifying the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'append_to_google_doc' or 'replace_all_text', which also modify document text, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific insertion method.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'append_to_google_doc' (for adding text at the end) and 'replace_all_text' (for substitution), there's no indication of when precise index-based insertion is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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