google_workspace_request

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: hosts are allowlisted, Authorization headers are injected, and destructive methods require confirm=true. These are practical details an agent needs to call the tool safely and effectively, and they are consistent with the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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 concise sentences carry essential purpose, security constraints, and destructive-usage confirmation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core safety and auth context well, which is critical for an arbitrary REST tool. However, there is no output schema and no mention of response format, error behavior, or an example request, so an agent may be unsure what to expect from the request and how to handle failures.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies the confirm parameter. It does not explain how to construct the url, how query and body are serialized, or what method values imply beyond the schema's enum and defaults, leaving a significant gap.

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 clearly identifies this as a generic escape hatch for Google Workspace REST APIs not covered by dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by specifying it is for the uncovered API surface, making its role and scope unambiguous.

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 this tool: for Google Workspace REST APIs not covered by a dedicated tool. It also communicates important constraints like allowlisted hosts and the confirm=true requirement for destructive methods, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use examples.

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