Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, how duplicates are positioned, or if there are rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies presentations.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (mutation with 3 params), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral, parametric, and usage details. The presence of an output schema helps, but doesn't fully offset the gaps in guidance and transparency.

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%, with only 'page_object_id' documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining 'user_google_email' or 'presentation_id'. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete parameter information.

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 ('duplicate') and resource ('a slide (or any object) within a presentation'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reorder_slides' or 'create_slides_shape', which also manipulate slides, so it doesn't achieve 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing slide to duplicate, or compare to tools like 'create_slides_shape' for new slides, leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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