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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior: it creates a DRAFT only, nothing on Google changes, and every service not named stays on the listing (merge, not replace). It also mandates showing the returned draft verbatim to the owner, which is behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the safety constraint, then the required next step. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately notes that it returns a draft and instructs the agent to relay it verbatim, covering the return-value burden. Minor gaps remain around remove_service_ids semantics and what the draft payload looks like.

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 coverage is only 33% (just add_custom). The description compensates partly by stating that add_service_ids come from my_service_options and add_custom is for services Google does not list, but remove_service_ids is never clarified beyond the general verb, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Draft) and resource (services) plus the two modes (adding/removing). It names the id source (my_service_options) and the follow-up sibling (publish_change), so it is clearly distinguishable from listing tools like my_service_options and from the publish/undo siblings.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: pull ids from my_service_options, use add_custom for unlisted services, and publish only via publish_change after owner approval. It states both the when (draft before publishing) and the alternative (publish_change).

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