docs_format_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that formatting is applied, but does not explain whether unspecified properties are left unchanged, how indices are interpreted (zero-based UTF-16 units), or whether existing formatting is overwritten. It also does not mention potential side effects like errors on invalid ranges or the need for document editing permissions.

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 gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it more under-specified than truly concise.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. It fails to address critical context such as index semantics, optional vs required parameters, color formatting, and behavioral edge cases. The existence of an output schema doesn't mitigate the lack of input/usage context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions bold, italic, underline, font size, and color (presumably foreground_color), but omits strikethrough entirely. It also does not explain the semantics of document_id, start_index, end_index, or the expected format for color values (e.g., CSS hex/rgb). This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Apply formatting') and its target resource ('a text range in a Google Doc'). It lists the main formatting types (bold, italic, underline, font size, color), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_insert_bullets. However, it omits strikethrough, which is also supported, and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling formatting tools (e.g., slides_format_text).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the document must already exist, or that indices must be valid). It does not mention any exclusions or limitations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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