Apps Script MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without behavioral details. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources, or has side effects like triggering notifications, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a deployment') and uses a structured 'Args:' section for parameters, making it efficient. However, the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more integrated, slightly reducing structural clarity.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence or permissions, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at return values or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for safe use.

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%, but the description adds basic semantics by explaining 'script_id' as 'The script project ID' and 'deployment_id' as 'The deployment ID to delete'. This clarifies the purpose of both parameters, though it lacks format details or examples, providing moderate value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a deployment'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_drive_file_tool' or 'delete_script_project_tool' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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_deployment_tool' or 'list_deployments_tool'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing deployment, or warnings about irreversible deletion.

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