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 clearly explains that the tool returns an authorization URL that must be opened in a browser, which is crucial behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential authentication scopes, error conditions, or timeout behavior that might be relevant for this type of authentication flow 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 concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, describing what it returns, and providing the next step. There is no wasted language 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 that this is an authentication tool with 0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and the workflow. However, it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or prerequisites (like needing to set up OAuth credentials first) for a more complete picture.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this tool configuration.

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 ('Start Google OAuth authentication flow') and the resource involved (authentication flow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on initiating authentication rather than performing operations on Google resources like documents, sheets, or events.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Start Google OAuth authentication flow') and provides clear guidance on what to do next ('After authorizing, call complete_google_auth with the redirect URL'), naming the specific alternative tool for the next step in the workflow.

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