gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions 'generates and runs trigger setup code' which implies execution, but doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether this is a write operation, error handling, or what happens if a trigger already exists. The behavioral context is incomplete for a tool that creates and executes code.

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 appropriately sized with clear structure: a purpose statement followed by bullet-point options. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting as 'Options:' with bullet points could be more integrated. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 (creating and executing trigger code), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers timing parameters well but lacks information about the script execution behavior, error conditions, and the relationship between required parameters (script_id, function_name) and the timing options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of timing parameters (every_minutes, every_hours, day_of_week, hour) and their relationships. It clarifies that day_of_week + hour creates weekly triggers, hour alone creates daily triggers, and provides valid value ranges. However, it doesn't explain script_id or function_name parameters.

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 tool creates a time-driven trigger via Apps Script execution, specifying the action (create) and resource (time-driven trigger). It distinguishes from siblings like trigger_delete and trigger_list by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other trigger-related tools.

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 implies usage for creating time-driven triggers with specific timing options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_run or other trigger tools. It provides context about trigger types but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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