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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the spreadsheet is created in a specific location (e.g., user's Drive root), ownership details, error conditions, or what happens if a spreadsheet with the same title exists. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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 with a clear main statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured, though the formatting could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameters well, but lacks important behavioral context about permissions, location, and error handling that would be expected for a creation tool in this ecosystem.

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 provides meaningful context for all three parameters: user_google_email identifies the owner, title specifies the spreadsheet name, and sheet_names explains the optional sheet creation with default value. This adds substantial semantic value 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 Google Spreadsheet') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_doc_tool or create_drive_file_tool by specifying it creates spreadsheets specifically, not other Google Workspace file types.

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 (like authentication), compare with similar tools (like create_drive_file_tool which might also create spreadsheets), or indicate when this is the appropriate choice among creation tools.

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