docs_append_text

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the return value detail and that it appends to an existing document, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or consequences of repeated calls beyond what the idempotentHint implies.

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 compact sentences, with the core operation first and return value second. No filler or redundant information; every sentence 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 append operation with schema-covered parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It would benefit from explicit usage routing to siblings and mention of failure conditions, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters clearly: text is 'Plain text to append to the end of the document' and document_id is 'The Google Doc ID (from its URL)'. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies despite the reported 0% coverage metric.

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 the action ('Append plain text to the end of an existing Google Doc') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself implicitly from create/read/replace siblings, but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for appending to an existing document, which suggests it is not for creating or replacing content. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over docs_replace_text or docs_create_document.

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