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 states the tool deletes an event but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., notifications). For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains parameters but misses critical behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, and error handling, leaving gaps for safe usage.

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 explicitly lists all three parameters with brief explanations, including the default value for 'calendar_id'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail formats (e.g., email validation, event 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('calendar event'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_event_tool' and 'update_event_tool' by focusing on removal rather than creation 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), conditions for use (e.g., event ownership), or what happens if the event doesn't exist. Without this context, an agent might misuse it.

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