gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a spreadsheet and returns ID and URL, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it overwrites existing files, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the action and return values. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new Google Spreadsheet') and avoids any unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines 'name' (required string) and 'folder_id' (optional string/null), but the description doesn't explain what these mean (e.g., 'name' as the spreadsheet title, 'folder_id' for Google Drive location). However, since there are only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't actively mislead.

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 ('Create a new Google Spreadsheet') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheets_add_table' or 'script_create_file', which might also create spreadsheet-related resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Google Drive access), compare to similar tools like 'sheets_add_table' for adding tables to existing spreadsheets, or specify use cases (e.g., creating from scratch vs. templates). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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