docs_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key nuance: 'Rich formatting is ON by default. Set rich=False to append literal text.' This goes beyond the schema's parameter description and clarifies a non-obvious behavioral default.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action first and the formatting caveat second. There is no filler, and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description covers the operation and the one behavioral nuance (rich formatting). It could point to sibling insertion tools or mention edit access, but nothing essential for successful invocation is missing.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds practical meaning to the rich parameter by explicitly explaining the default behavior and the 'append literal text' alternative, which the schema only hints at with 'interpret simple markdown-like formatting natively'.

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 and resource: 'Append a new paragraph at the end of a Google Doc.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_after and docs_insert_before, which target specific locations rather than the end.

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 phrase 'at the end' implies this is for end-of-document additions, but the description never explicitly names alternative tools such as docs_insert_after or docs_insert_before, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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