docs_insert_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful context ('Index 1 = beginning') but does not state out-of-bounds behavior, whether text is inserted before or after the index, or any authentication/permutation requirements.

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 two short sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core usage and index semantics, but could mention edge cases (e.g., valid index range) or relationship to sibling tools. Overall adequate for a straightforward insert operation.

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. It clarifies the 'index' parameter ('Index 1 = beginning') but does not explain 'text' or 'document_id' (though those are self-evident from context). It also does not specify whether the index refers to character or byte offset.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('Google Doc') with a clear scope ('at a specific position'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docs_append_text by emphasizing positional insertion and clarifying index semantics ('Index 1 = beginning').

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 implies usage for inserting at a specific position, which differentiates it from append tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'Use docs_append_text to add text at the end.'

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