Google Workspace MCP VE

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 discloses that rows are added to the end of the table body with automatic range extension, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the table doesn't exist, leaving gaps 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 concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides essential usage guidance. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations but with a complete input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior and usage prerequisite, though additional transparency about permissions or errors would make it more complete for a write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it does reinforce the need for table_id from 'list_sheet_tables', which is already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Appends rows') and target resource ('structured table in a Google Sheet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'modify_sheet_values' or 'create_table_with_data'. It specifies that rows are added to the end of the table body with automatic range extension, providing precise scope.

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 by directing users to 'Use list_sheet_tables first to find the table ID', providing a clear prerequisite. It distinguishes this tool from alternatives by focusing on appending to existing structured tables rather than modifying arbitrary ranges or creating new tables.

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