gworkspace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking references), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks critical context like behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and parameter details. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and low schema coverage.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a function' and 'the script project', which loosely maps to 'function_name' and 'script_id', but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., script_id as a project identifier, function_name as the target). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a function from the script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'script_edit_function' or 'script_get_function' by specifying deletion rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'script_list_functions' for listing or 'script_add_function' for addition, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 an existing function), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting files), or recommend other tools like 'script_list_functions' to check before deletion. With siblings like 'script_edit_function' and 'script_get_function', this lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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