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. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: that versions are 'immutable' and 'cannot be modified once created,' which is crucial for understanding the tool's impact. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the script_id doesn't exist.

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 clarifying sentences about versions and immutability, then a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (creating immutable versions), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well. However, it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing script project) or typical use cases, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 fully compensate. It successfully adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining both parameters: 'script_id' as 'The script project ID' and 'description' as 'Optional description for this version.' This clarifies the purpose and optional nature of each parameter, which the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 with specific verbs ('Create a new immutable version') and resource ('script project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_script_project_tool' or 'update_script_content_tool'. It explicitly defines what versions are ('capture a snapshot of the current script code') and their immutable nature.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to create immutable versions of script projects. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_script_content_tool' (for modifying code) or 'get_version_tool' (for retrieving versions).

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