gworkspace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Move[s] a file,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if the move is permanent or reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens to the original file location. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a real-world context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'file' and 'folder' but does not clarify the semantics of 'file_url' and 'dest_folder_id,' such as their expected formats (e.g., URLs, IDs), sources, or constraints. This leaves key parameter details undocumented, failing to add meaningful value 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 ('Move') and resource ('a file'), specifying the target ('to a different folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'drive_copy' by focusing on relocation rather than duplication. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'drive_search' or 'script_*' tools, which is why it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_copy' for copying files or other drive-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing file and folder IDs, or exclusions, like not moving files across different drives if applicable. This minimal guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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