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 creates a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it returns the new folder's ID, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or side effects. 'Create' implies a mutation, but details are missing.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or permissions, which are important for a creation tool.

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: user_google_email clarifies it's the user's email, folder_name specifies it's for naming, and parent_id explains the default 'root' value. This goes beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Create a new folder') and resource ('in Google Drive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_drive_file_tool (which creates files) and list_drive_items_tool (which lists items). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), differentiate from similar creation tools (e.g., create_drive_file_tool), or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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