workspace_raw

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context that the CLI is generated from Google's discovery service, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as confirmation requirements, rate limits, or potential impact of destructive calls beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 sentences; the first front-loads the core selection rule and the second adds breadth and the workspace_schema guide. No wasted words, and the service list is informationally dense.

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?

For a generic high-breadth tool with no output schema, the description gives enough direction to proceed: it defines scope, points to workspace_schema for exact shapes, and the schema covers parameters and delete confirmation. It does not describe return/error behavior, but workspace_schema is positioned to fill that 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?

Input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is met. The description's pointer to workspace_schema for exact shape is helpful for path construction, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action: call any Google Workspace API method not covered by curated tools. This directly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, and the list of services makes the resource scope concrete.

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?

It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: when curated tools do not cover the needed method. It also directs the agent to call workspace_schema first to learn the request shape, giving a clear usage sequence.

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