build_rich_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool fails fast if the `gws` CLI is missing, and that an omitted `folder_id` places the doc in the default location with a follow-up response. This is valuable, but it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like permissions or the full return shape, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence earns its place: one for purpose, one for parameter semantics, and one for the CLI prerequisite and failure mode. No fluff 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, explains two of three parameters, states the environment requirement, and hints at the response behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact return value, but it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining `blocks` as the generator block form and pointing to the `gws-richdoc` skill, and `folder_id` as a Drive folder with default-location behavior. The `name` parameter is left to inference from its schema title, but overall the description adds meaningful meaning beyond raw schema.

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 action ('Build a formatted Google Doc') and lists visual elements (banners, boxes, callouts, coloured code blocks), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gws-doc or gws-richdoc, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete guidance: how to fill `blocks`, what happens when `folder_id` is omitted, and a hard prerequisite (the `gws` CLI) with failure behavior. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool, but it provides clear enough context for invoking it.

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