gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies source code (implying mutation) and has a scoping constraint ('Only that function is modified'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Replace a specific function's source code', 'Only that function is modified') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and scope but lacks crucial details for a mutation tool, such as behavioral traits or parameter guidance, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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. It implies parameters for identifying the function and providing new source code, mapping to the three parameters, but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 ('Replace') and target ('a specific function's source code'), distinguishing it from siblings like script_add_function or script_delete_function. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (script) or differentiate from script_update_file, which might also modify code.

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 script_update_file or script_add_function. It mentions 'Only that function is modified' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool comparisons.

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