Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes permissions, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., access loss), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's efficient and well-organized for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions needed or consequences. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address', 'file_id: The file or folder ID', and 'permission_id: The permission ID to remove (from list_drive_permissions)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only specifies types. The parameter semantics are clear and practical, compensating well for the schema gap.

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: 'Remove a permission from a file or folder.' This specifies the verb ('remove') and resource ('permission from a file or folder'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'share_drive_file_tool' or 'list_drive_permissions_tool', which would require mentioning it's specifically for revocation rather than granting or listing.

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 implies usage by referencing 'permission_id: The permission ID to remove (from list_drive_permissions)', suggesting this tool should be used after listing permissions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'share_drive_file_tool' for adding permissions, or clarify prerequisites such as needing appropriate access rights.

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