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 the destructive nature ('permanently delete', 'WARNING'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to shared links, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 and warning, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance, and the parameter section clarifies inputs without redundancy. It's efficiently structured with zero waste.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description does well by highlighting permanence and providing an alternative. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a high-stakes operation, additional context on permissions or error handling would enhance completeness.

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 both parameters: 'user_google_email' is explained as 'The user's Google email address' and 'file_id' as 'The file ID to delete'. This clarifies what each parameter represents, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., email validation or ID structure).

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 ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a file from Google Drive'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'trash_drive_file' by emphasizing the permanent nature of deletion, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it warns that this is for permanent deletion and explicitly names 'trash_drive_file' as the alternative for recoverable deletion. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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