Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new Google Doc, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed (e.g., whether the user_google_email must have edit access), what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral 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 main purpose ('Create a new Google Doc.') followed by parameter explanations in a clear 'Args:' section. It's efficient with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or permissions. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but more context on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics by explaining 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address', 'title: Document title', and 'content: Optional initial content', which clarifies purpose and optionality. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., email validation, content constraints) or default behavior for 'content', leaving gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new Google Doc.' This specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Doc'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_drive_file_tool' or 'create_spreadsheet_tool' beyond mentioning 'Google Doc' specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create_drive_file_tool' (which might create other file types) or 'append_doc_text_tool' (which modifies existing docs), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or document location. The only implied usage is for creating new Google Docs, but without context about alternatives.

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