docs_append_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It mentions appending text but does not describe whether a new paragraph is created, how formatting is handled, if there are size limits, or what the response contains. The mutation is implied but lacks deeper transparency.

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 immediately conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized given the simple operation, though brevity comes at the cost of context.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover edge cases, required permissions, return values, or interaction with document formatting. The tool appears simple, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves gaps for the agent.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It mentions 'text' and 'Google Doc' but does not explain that document_id is required or any constraints on the text string. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare field titles.

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 (append) and the resource (Google Doc) with a specific location (end). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text which likely inserts at a specified position, making the purpose unambiguous.

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_insert_text or docs_find_replace. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context or exclusions.

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