Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'appends values' (implying a write operation) and mentions the 'value_input' parameter with options, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section detailing each parameter. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 write operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context like authentication, permissions, or error handling. It's adequate for basic use but insufficient for robust agent understanding.

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 fully compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters: 'user_google_email' (identifies the user), 'spreadsheet_id' (identifies the sheet), 'range' (A1 notation with examples), 'values' (2D array with an example), and 'value_input' (interpretation options with enum values). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Append values to a Google Sheet') and resource ('Google Sheet'), with the parenthetical 'adds rows after existing data' providing precise operational detail. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_sheet_values_tool' (which modifies existing cells) and 'get_sheet_values_tool' (which reads data).

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 through the phrase 'adds rows after existing data,' suggesting this is for adding new data rather than modifying existing cells. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_sheet_values_tool' or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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