Raw Google Chat API call

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

Annotations already communicate destructive/read-only/idempotency hints, and the description adds useful behavior facts: the Bearer token is added automatically, the method defaults to GET, paths may include query strings, and media endpoints are not proxied. It does not elaborate on destructive consequences, but destructiveHint already covers the safety profile.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, examples, defaults, and exclusions are each covered in one compact span. The long example list is justified for an open-ended raw tool, and the media exclusion is clearly separated.

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 escape-hatch tool, the description is largely complete: it covers path semantics, method default, body usage, auth behavior, query strings, and media exclusion. The only minor gap is an explicit statement about the response shape, but raw responses are inherently variable and no output schema exists.

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 schema covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value with concrete path/method/body examples (POST v1/spaces, PATCH v1/spaces/<id>, v1/spaces:setup) and clarifies that paths are relative with optional query strings. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'call any Google Chat API v1 path directly' and clearly positions the tool as an 'Escape hatch' for requests typed tools don't cover. Concrete examples like creating spaces, setting up DMs, and custom-emoji reactions make it easy to distinguish from the typed 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'for requests the typed tools don't cover' and provides a clear exclusion: 'Not for media: attachment upload/download use different endpoints... that this server does not proxy.' This gives an agent enough information to choose raw_request over alternative typed tools.

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