Raw Google Apps Script API call

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the Bearer token is added automatically, foreign-origin paths are rejected, the method defaults to GET, and PUT content replaces the entire file set. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 five sentences long, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, examples, query-string handling, auth/origin/method behavior, and the destructive PUT warning. It is front-loaded with the escape-hatch purpose and contains no filler.

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 raw API escape hatch with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage, authentication, origin safety, method default, and destructive behavior. It does not mention response format or error handling, but these are reasonably implied for a direct API pass-through and the risky PUT case is explicitly flagged.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that paths may carry query strings, repeated filter params can be encoded there, and giving concrete path/body examples. It doesn't deeply document the body shape, but the examples compensate adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'call any Google Apps Script API v1 path directly' and frames itself as an 'escape hatch' for 'requests the typed tools don't cover'. This clearly differentiates it from typed siblings, and concrete examples (GET content, PUT content) remove any ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when typed tools don't cover a request. It also provides a when-not by naming update_project_content as the preferred alternative for PUT content, because its merge mode protects other files. Query-string usage and the GET default are also explained.

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