gcloud_logging_write

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Write a log entry,' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose whether entries are immutable once written, whether there are rate limits, what happens to the message format, or if authentication is implicitly handled. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is also minimalistic without any additional structure or detail. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, more content would be justified.

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 does 4 parameters, 2 required, with no annotations and no output schema, the description only partially explains the tool's purpose. It fails to mention what the response looks like, whether the log is immediately queryable, or if there are constraints on resource types. The description is not complete enough for the agent to use the tool without additional knowledge.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Write a log entry') and the target resource ('Cloud Logging'). It could be improved by noting that this creates a new entry rather than modifying an existing one, which would differentiate it from sibling tools like gcloud_logging_read.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives like gcloud_logging_read for reading logs, or prerequisites such as authentication or logging API enablement. The context of where log entries should be written (e.g., to a specific project or log bucket) is also missing.

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