Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes elements, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, irreversibility, error handling, or what the output schema might return. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resources without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, low schema coverage (33%), and the presence of an output schema (which the description does not reference), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or how the output might be used, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool 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 33% (only 'object_id' has a description), and the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It does not clarify the meaning of 'user_google_email' or 'presentation_id', nor does it explain the scope of 'object_id' for different element types. The baseline score of 3 reflects minimal value added over the schema.

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 ('Delete') and the target resources ('a slide, shape, text box, image, or other page element'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_doc_tab' or 'delete_script_project', which lowers it from a perfect 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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context such as whether it's for Google Slides specifically or how it relates to other deletion tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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