docs_insert_text

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention whether inserting at an index shifts existing text, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but adds minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency.

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 simplicity of the tool and that the schema covers all parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits details about the effect on existing content (e.g., does it shift text?) and lacks any usage guidance, making it slightly incomplete for an agent's full understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for instance, it does not clarify the default value of 'index' or the purpose of 'segmentId' in more detail.

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 verb 'Insert' and the resource 'text into a Google Doc', and specifies the key aspect 'at a specified position'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like docs_insert_table and docs_insert_image.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docs_batch_update or docs_find_replace. There are no exclusions or context for usage, leaving the agent without decision support.

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