Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool appends text, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, authentication needs (though 'user_google_email' hints at this), rate limits, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently lists parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'user_google_email' (identifies the user), 'document_id' (identifies the document), and 'text' (content to append). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify formats (e.g., email validation, document ID structure).

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 specific action ('Append text'), target resource ('to the end of a Google Doc'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'modify_doc_text_tool' (which likely edits rather than appends) and 'get_doc_content_tool' (which reads rather than writes). It uses a precise verb and identifies the exact resource type.

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 implies usage when text needs to be added to the end of a Google Doc, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_doc_text_tool' or 'create_doc_tool'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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