drive_docs_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: write/append semantics, dry_run default false, real writes requiring an operator allow rule and lease unless require_lease:false, lease reuse rules, the stale-lease refusal path, and the critical warning that cancellation/timeout is not rollback so state must be inspected before retrying. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Purpose and the key alternative are front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence carries actionable detail. It is dense and semicolon-chained, so it reads less cleanly than ideal, but little is pure filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers the mutation model, lease lifecycle, dry-run semantics, error signaling ('Output is complete tagged YAML; refusals/failures set is_error'), and retry caveats. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 100%, so document_id, text, text_path, dry_run, lease, and account are already documented in the schema. The description's parameter remarks (dry_run defaults false, text_path for existing files, acquire lease via drive_lease_acquire) largely restate schema text, adding only minor workflow context; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Append text at the end of a Google Doc') and immediately names the sibling to use instead for the adjacent operation ('use drive_docs_replace to change existing text'). An agent can distinguish append vs. replace without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use routing (drive_docs_replace for existing text, text_path for existing files), a recommended dry-run-first workflow, the lease prerequisite and where to get it (drive_lease_acquire), and recovery paths for stale-revision and refused-lease-stale. Guiding conditions and alternatives are stated, not inferred.

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