workspace_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool dismisses side panels, removes onboarding modals, focuses the editor, types with real keystrokes, sends newlines as Enter, and verifies the text. This goes beyond a simple 'types text' and explains underlying behavior and side effects.

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?

Description is well-organized with platform-specific subsections and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, covering rationale, behavior, and parameters without redundancy. It's detailed yet efficient, front-loading the core purpose.

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 why the tool exists, how it works across Docs and Slides, parameter semantics, and when to use alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. No important context is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (text, target, verify, placeholder) with platform-specific detail, e.g., placeholder=N for Slides and verify as best-effort Docs-only. This fully compensates for the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Type text into a Google Workspace editor (Docs or Slides) reliably.' It distinguishes itself from fill_field/click by explaining they can't place text on canvas, making the tool's niche crystal clear.

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?

Explicitly says fill_field/click can't place text on canvas and execCommand is deprecated/flaky, so this tool is the reliable alternative. Also references workspace_new_slide() for adding slides, providing clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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