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 action is to 'share' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a well-organized Args section that documents each parameter clearly without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete despite having an output schema. It covers parameters well but lacks critical behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema helps, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter clarification. It explains all 5 parameters with clear semantics: what each parameter represents, the valid values for 'role', and default behavior for 'send_notification'. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Share') and resource ('a file or folder with a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drive_permissions_tool' or 'remove_drive_permission_tool', which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drive_permissions_tool' or 'remove_drive_permission_tool'. It also lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or constraints (e.g., file ownership).

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