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. It mentions drafting with attachments and 'Send As' features, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by 'user_google_email' but not stated), rate limits, whether drafts are saved automatically, or error handling. The description adds some context but misses key operational details 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise supporting sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific features (reply drafts, attachments, 'Send As'), with zero waste or redundancy.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key features but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description should do more to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'new drafts and reply drafts' and 'Send As' feature, which relate to parameters like 'thread_id' and 'from_email', but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates a draft email'), resource ('in the user's Gmail account'), and scope ('Supports both new drafts and reply drafts with optional attachments' and 'Supports Gmail's "Send As" feature'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_gmail_message' by focusing on drafting rather than sending.

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 drafting emails in Gmail, including replies and aliases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'send_gmail_message' for immediate sending). It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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