docs_insert_bullets

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 'apply formatting' without explaining side effects, such as how the start/end indices affect entire paragraphs, what happens to existing list formatting, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundant information.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool. It does not explain how indices map to paragraphs, what bullet_type options exist beyond the default, or any constraints. The tool needs more context to be used correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not mention document_id, start_index, end_index, or bullet_type. The description provides zero assistance in understanding what each parameter controls.

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 tool's function: applying bullet or numbered list formatting to paragraphs in a Google Doc. The verb 'apply' and the specific resource 'paragraphs in a Google Doc' distinguish it from sibling tools like docs_format_text or docs_insert_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 clear context by specifying the tool is for bullet/numbered list formatting on paragraphs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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