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 mentions EMU units and default sizes, but fails to cover critical aspects: it does not state if this is a mutation (likely yes, but unconfirmed), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the impact on the slide. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly convey essential information: the action and EMU reference. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic positioning and size details but lacks comprehensive guidance on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the overall description remains incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 18%, with only one parameter ('page_object_id') having a description. The tool description adds minimal value: it explains EMU units and default sizes, which relate to 'left', 'top', 'width', and 'height' parameters, but does not clarify other parameters like 'user_google_email', 'presentation_id', or styling options ('font_size', 'bold', 'italic'). This insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage results in a below-baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a text box on a slide at a given position (EMU units).' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('text box'), and location ('on a slide'), making the action distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_slides_shape' or 'insert_slides_image', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.

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. It mentions EMU units and default sizes, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'create_slides_shape' or 'format_slides_text'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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