create_script_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the action, list arguments, mention that parent_id may be a Drive folder or bound container ID, and specify the return type. However, it does not explain authorization requirements, side effects on Drive, failure modes, or what happens when parent_id is omitted.

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 compact and well organized into a purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. The service line is arguably unnecessary since service is not an input schema property, but overall the description is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

The description and input schema cover the essential parameters and return value, but the optional parent_id behavior is under-specified, particularly what happens when it is omitted and how a bound container ID differs from a Drive folder. For a create operation with no annotations, the lack of usage context and behavioral caveats leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, and the Args block compensates by defining all three actual parameters: user_google_email, title, and parent_id, including parent_id's optionality and dual meaning. The extra 'service' argument is described as injected and is not present in the schema, which introduces mild ambiguity about what an agent should pass.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Apps Script project.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_script_projects, get_script_project, update_script_content, and delete_script_project. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, and it offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Like a bare 'Update ...' statement, it leaves usage selection mostly to inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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