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 mentions writing values but fails to address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing data, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly brief for completeness.

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 complexity as a write operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. However, the presence of an output schema slightly mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall, it's insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 only explains 'values' as a '2D array', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definition. Parameters 'spreadsheet' and 'range' are undocumented, leaving their semantics unclear and failing to adequately cover the input requirements.

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 verb ('Write') and resource ('sheet range'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'sheets_append' or 'sheets_format', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sheets_append' for adding rows or 'sheets_format' for styling. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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