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 adds some context about versions being 'immutable snapshots' and how they are created, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions for a list operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about versions. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a list tool with no annotations and two required parameters, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps in understanding when and how to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (user_google_email and script_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between the email and script ID or parameter constraints.

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: 'Lists all versions of a script project.' It specifies the resource (versions) and the action (lists), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_version' or 'create_version', which would require a 5.

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 mentions that versions are created by deployment or explicit creation, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'get_version' or 'list_script_projects'.

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