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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description lacks details on permissions needed, whether the deletion is reversible, error handling, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers basic purpose and usage. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on parameters, it lacks critical details like behavioral traits and parameter meanings. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'script_id' and 'trigger_id' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'trigger by ID' but does not explain what 'script_id' is, its relationship to 'trigger_id', or the format/requirements for these IDs. It adds minimal value beyond implying IDs are needed, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 trigger by ID'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'trigger_list' for finding IDs, which helps differentiate it from other trigger-related tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven'.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Delete a trigger by ID') and when to use an alternative ('Use trigger_list to find IDs'), offering clear guidance on prerequisites and distinguishing it from sibling tools. This helps the agent understand the workflow and tool selection context.

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