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 full burden. It implies a mutation ('Apply formatting'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output schema might contain. This is inadequate for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose without waste. It's 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 complexity (10 parameters, 30% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't add value beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in usage, behavioral context, and parameter understanding that hinder 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 30%, with many parameters like 'space_above', 'space_below', 'start_index', and 'end_index' lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, which is critical given the high parameter count.

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 ('Apply paragraph formatting') and target ('text in a slide element'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_slides_text' or 'update_paragraph_style', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full 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. With siblings like 'format_slides_text' and 'update_paragraph_style' present, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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