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. While it clearly indicates this is a creation operation, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like: what permissions are required, whether the file is immediately visible to others, what happens if a file with the same name exists, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant information. The formatting with 'Args:' section makes it easy to scan.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important contextual information about permissions, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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?

The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters beyond what the schema shows (which has 0% description coverage). It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'user's Google email address', 'Parent folder ID', 'MIME type of the file') and provides default values. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more context about valid formats or constraints.

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 file') and resource ('in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_doc_tool' or 'create_spreadsheet_tool' which also create files in Drive, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific file creation tool.

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 like 'create_doc_tool' or 'create_spreadsheet_tool'. It mentions default values for folder_id and mime_type but doesn't explain when to override them or what other MIME types might be appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases.

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