Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what the deployment entails. It mentions default behavior for 'version_description' but lacks broader context about the deployment process.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate block.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a creation tool. It's minimally complete but leaves gaps in usage guidelines and transparency.

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 adds meaningful context for all three parameters: clarifying that 'script_id' refers to 'script project ID', 'description' is for the deployment, and 'version_description' is optional with default behavior. This provides semantic understanding 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 action ('Create a new deployment') and resource ('of the script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_version_tool' or 'update_deployment_tool', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a deployment from a version or update 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_version_tool' or 'update_deployment_tool', nor are there any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned. The description only lists parameters without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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