append_to_google_doc

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

Discloses that content is added without overwriting and lists return values. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it adequately describes the mutation behavior but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Concise with a clear main sentence, then sections for behavior, args, and returns. No fluff, front-loaded purpose.

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 no output schema, description includes return values. Covers core behavior and parameters. Could mention error scenarios or permissions, but overall adequate for a simple append tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates minimally. It explains document_id as the ID and content as text, but no additional details like format, length limits, or constraints. This is basic, not rich.

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?

Clearly states 'Append content to the end of an existing Google Document.' The verb 'append' and resource are specific, and the action is distinct from siblings like create_google_doc and read_google_doc.

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?

Implied usage: use when you want to append to an existing doc. No explicit guidance on when not to use or compare with alternatives. The sibling list provides context but no direct exclusions.

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