Google api call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: contract-checked, guarded, audited, and reversible only 'where the API allows', plus the allow_delete gate. It stops short of explaining the confirm token or what a failed contract check returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter contract, then the safety caveat — a logical order with almost no waste. The parenthetical list of API families and the dense semicolon chaining make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a generic destructive write proxy with 7 parameters, leaving the confirmation mechanism and version selection undefined is a meaningful gap an agent must resolve by trial.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It defines api, method, params (URL path/query only) and body (request object) with concrete examples, and covers allow_delete via the delete note. However, `confirm` and `version` are entirely unexplained, and the params/body split is the only real guard against malformed calls.

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 and scope ('Run a write method of any listed Google API') and immediately enumerates the covered API families. It is clearly separable from the read-oriented siblings google.api.list, google.api.methods, google.api.describe and google.api.read.

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 routes the agent through the discovery siblings, telling it to get `api` from google.api.list and `method` from google.api.methods, and flags the precondition that deletes need allow_delete. It does not explicitly say 'use google.api.read instead for read methods', so the read/write split is left implicit.

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