gws.docs.insert_text

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that the tool 'irreversibly modifies user content' and advising user confirmation. It also clarifies literal text insertion (no regex). While destructiveHint is false, this is not a direct contradiction but a caution about side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema plus annotations cover most details. The description provides essential behavioral context (irreversibility, user confirmation, literal insertion) that completes the picture. No return value is described, but output schema is absent and likely not critical for an insert operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'location' values ('end' or 1-based index) and the literal nature of 'text' (no regex), which goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 ('Insert literal text into a Google Doc') with a clear scope ('literal', 'No regex'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gws.docs.replace_text by emphasizing literal insertion vs. regex-based replacement.

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?

It explains the location parameter ('end' or index) and warns against regex use, implying when to use this tool over replace_text. It also provides a safety guideline ('Confirm intent with the user') for documents not created in the session, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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