Raw Google Tasks API call

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

Annotations already signal destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds crucial context: the Bearer token is added automatically, method defaults to GET, and PATCH/PUT/POST/DELETE hit live data with no confirmation. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and warns the agent about irreversible actions.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concrete example, and ends with the most important safety warning. 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 an arbitrary raw API call tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: base URL, path handling, query string support, authentication, method default, safety warning, and guidance on when to prefer typed tools. Nothing critical 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the path-relative-to-base, method-default, and body-handling semantics, but these are already fully documented in the input schema. The escape-hatch examples add color but not new parameter-level meaning.

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 precise purpose: an escape hatch to call any Google Tasks API v1 path directly. It explicitly differentiates from the typed sibling tools by saying it exists for requests the typed tools don't cover, with concrete examples like full-resource PUT and unsupported query combinations.

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 description says exactly when to use it ('for requests the typed tools don't cover') and when not to ('prefer the typed tools when one fits'). This gives an agent clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over its 14 siblings.

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