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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create, update, or delete' clearly indicates mutation operations, the description lacks critical behavioral information: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether operations are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. For a multi-action mutation tool with 17 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and consolidation nature. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides important context about tool evolution. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (multi-action CRUD with 17 parameters), no annotations, but with both comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (per context signals), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but for a mutation tool with no behavioral annotations, more guidance on usage patterns and constraints would be helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('Create, update, or delete a contact') and identifies the resource ('a contact'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its predecessors ('replacing create_contact, update_contact, and delete_contact'), showing clear differentiation from sibling tools that no longer exist.

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 context by stating it's a consolidated tool replacing three specific operations, suggesting it should be used for any contact CRUD operation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other contact-related tools like 'get_contact', 'search_contacts', or 'manage_contacts_batch' that appear in the sibling list.

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