docs_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that text is appended to the end and that heading/bold/italic can be applied, but it doesn't mention any side effects (e.g., formatting resets, cursor position, or whether existing content is preserved). It doesn't state if the operation is idempotent or if it requires specific 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 states the core action and optional formatting. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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 (append with optional formatting), and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description could usefully mention return value (e.g., updated document ID) or error conditions. The description is complete for basic usage but lacks details like whether appending creates a new paragraph or handles empty docs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the parameters (e.g., 'heading style' for style) but doesn't provide additional detail beyond the schema, such as default behavior when style is omitted or how bold/italic interact with existing formatting.

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 ('append') and resource ('Google Doc'), clearly indicating the action. It also distinguishes from siblings like docs_replace_text and docs_insert_table by focusing on appending to the end, and includes optional formatting details.

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 (appending text to a doc) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over docs_replace_text or docs_apply_style. It doesn't mention prerequisites like document access or that the document must exist.

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