gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the return values (ID and URL). It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it preserves metadata, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded and efficient with two concise sentences: one stating the action and resource, and another specifying returns. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and returns but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for safe operation.

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 adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'source', 'new_name', or 'folder_id' represent (e.g., file IDs, naming rules, folder destinations). Baseline is 3 due to the gap, as it fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Copy') and resource ('Drive file') with examples of file types, and specifies the return values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'drive_move' or 'sheets_copy_sheet', which would require 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_move' (for moving instead of copying) or 'sheets_copy_sheet' (for copying within spreadsheets). The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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