Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: recursive copying of all contents, sequential execution to avoid rate limits, and the default naming convention ('Copy of [original name]'). It doesn't mention permissions needed, error handling, or performance characteristics, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second adds crucial operational detail about sequential execution. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 complex recursive copy operation with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good context about the copying behavior and rate limit handling. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. It could benefit from mentioning permissions or error scenarios, but covers the essential operational aspects well.

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 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the copying process being recursive and sequential, which helps understand how parameters like source_folder_id and destination_parent_id are used in practice. It also clarifies the naming behavior for new_folder_name beyond what the schema states.

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 ('recursively copy'), the resource ('a Drive folder and all its contents'), and the destination ('to a new location'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_drive_file by specifying it handles folders recursively, not just single files.

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 for copying entire folder structures, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like copy_drive_file or create_drive_folder. It mentions sequential execution to avoid rate limits, which provides some operational context but not clear decision criteria.

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