Modify Doc Text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by warning about index calculation errors, explaining end_of_segment behavior, and cautioning about ID guessing. It does not detail irreversible side effects, but the annotation covers the core safety profile.

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 compact: main purpose in the first sentence, then a useful TIP, then explicit exclusions and warnings. Every sentence provides actionable value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of 21 parameters and an output schema, the description effectively covers the essential operational nuances: insertion vs replacement, formatting-only usage, end_of_segment for append, header/footer guidance, and segment ID provenance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema, particularly for end_of_segment ('avoids index calculation errors') and segment_id ('Do not guess IDs'), which helps the agent use parameters correctly. This goes beyond baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Modifies text in a Google Doc') and clearly enumerates the scope: insert/replace text and/or apply formatting in a single operation. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings (e.g., update_doc_headers_footers) by explicitly addressing header/footer use cases.

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 gives direct guidance on when to use an alternative: 'For ordinary header/footer text, prefer update_doc_headers_footers.' It also provides concrete procedural warnings, such as only passing real segment IDs from inspect_doc_structure and not guessing IDs, plus a practical TIP for appending with end_of_segment=true.

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