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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a shape on a slide,' implying a write operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 9 parameters, as it omits critical behavioral details like error handling or confirmation of creation.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for its brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective tool invocation, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 low at 22%, with only 2 out of 9 parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it does not explain what 'user_google_email' or 'page_object_id' represent, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a shape on a slide'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_slides_text_box', which creates a different type of slide element, leaving room for improvement in specificity.

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, such as 'create_slides_text_box' for text elements or 'insert_slides_image' for images. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing a presentation and slide, or exclusions, which limits its utility for an AI agent.

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