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 full burden. It states it 'creates' a new sheet, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required (e.g., edit access to the spreadsheet), whether it overwrites existing sheets with the same name, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implying return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, idempotency) to be fully complete, especially without annotations to cover safety or side effects.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (user_google_email, spreadsheet_id, sheet_name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('a new sheet within an existing spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_spreadsheet' (which creates entire spreadsheets) or 'manage_sheet_tabs' (which might handle sheet operations more broadly), missing full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for adding sheets to user-owned spreadsheets only, or how it differs from 'create_spreadsheet' for new spreadsheets versus adding sheets to existing ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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