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 the action ('Create a new calendar event') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the event is immediately saved or requires confirmation, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context for a mutation tool.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are organized in a clear list format, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating format examples for start/end times). Every sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but for a creation tool with no annotations, more operational guidance is needed to be fully adequate.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address'), provides format examples for 'start_time' and 'end_time', clarifies defaults (e.g., 'calendar_id: Calendar ID (default: 'primary')'), and explains conditional behavior ('all_day: If True, create an all-day event'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 calendar event') and identifies the resource ('calendar event'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_events_tool' (read) and 'update_event_tool' (modify) by specifying creation rather than retrieval or modification.

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 'update_event_tool' or 'delete_event_tool'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering only basic parameter explanations without usage context.

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