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 effectively describes key traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'update'), emphasizes safety ('safest way to update specific text'), explains the no-index advantage, and mentions risk mitigation ('without risk of index errors'). However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and alternatives. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and key advantage, the second explains safety, the third lists use cases, and the fourth provides an alternative workflow. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, safety considerations, and alternatives without needing to explain parameters or return values, which are handled by structured fields.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it contextually implies how 'find_text' and 'replace_text' are used for placeholder replacement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('finds and replaces text') and resources ('throughout a Google Doc'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'modify_doc_text' or 'batch_update_doc' by emphasizing no index calculation required. It explicitly differentiates from alternatives in the usage guidelines section.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., replacing placeholder text, updating specific words/phrases, making targeted changes without index errors) and when to use alternatives (e.g., 'batch_update_doc' for building documents from scratch). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools in context.

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