Collapse the tool surface to its configured default to reclaim context budget after heavy Google Workspace activity. All tools remain callable by name.
Collapse the tool surface back to the configured default, reclaiming context budget after heavy Google work. All tools remain callable by name after collapsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description adds the non-obvious behavior that collapsing does not unload tools permanently — they remain callable by name. That is real context beyond structured fields, though it omits what the call returns or whether it is a no-op when already at default.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; the payoff (all tools still callable) follows immediately. Minor: neither sentence is wasteful.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. A note on idempotent/no-op behavior or confirmation output would close the remaining gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a concrete verb and effect: collapse the tool surface back to the configured default. It is clearly the inverse of the *_discover / discover_all siblings, though it never names one explicitly to sharpen the contrast.
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?
"Reclaiming context budget after heavy Google work" gives a clear triggering condition for when to call it, and the second sentence sets expectations afterward. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.