start_google_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a legacy OAuth 2.0 tool, that it is disabled when OAuth 2.1 is enabled, that authentication is normally automatic, and that manual initiation is only for specific retry or proactive cases. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple action statement.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical legacy note, explicit usage conditions, and a helpful redirect to normal behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary context, and the numbered conditions make the guidance easy for an agent to parse.

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 usage context and fallback behavior are thoroughly explained, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be covered. However, the description omits essential parameter semantics: what values 'service_name' accepts and what 'user_google_email' means. For a tool with a required parameter and no schema descriptions, this is a clear completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters. The tool requires 'service_name' and has an optional 'user_google_email', but the description never clarifies what service names are valid or what role the email plays. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 explicitly states the action ('Manually initiate Google OAuth authentication flow') and the specific resource (OAuth authentication). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling workspace tools by framing it as an authentication utility rather than a Gmail, Drive, Docs, or Calendar operation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a numbered list of three specific conditions, and also explains when NOT to use it: automatic authentication normally handles the flow and users should simply call the target Google Workspace tool. This is exemplary usage guidance that leaves little to inference.

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