Create a new Google Doc with optional initial content, and receive a confirmation message with the document ID and link.
Creates a new Google Doc and optionally inserts initial content.
Returns: str: Confirmation message with document ID and link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the main behavior: creating a Google Doc and optionally inserting content, plus the return format. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication/authored-by implications, side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent with partial behavioral 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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the primary action and return value in two short sentences, though it sacrifices some useful guidance for brevity.
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 relatively simple create operation, the description covers the core action and return value. However, it lacks essential context about required authentication context (user_google_email), parameter semantics, and how this tool differs from related file/doc creation tools, making it only moderately complete.
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 for parameter meaning. It adds that 'content' is optional initial content, but it does not explain the semantics of 'title' or especially 'user_google_email', which is a required and non-obvious parameter.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Google Doc' with optional initial content. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like create_drive_file or import_to_google_doc.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_drive_file or import_to_google_doc. The create semantics imply the use case, but there is no contextual direction or exclusion of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.