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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool can perform destructive actions (create, update, delete), it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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—just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and consolidation role. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (7 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a mutation-heavy tool, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) to be fully complete.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create, update, delete') and resource ('contact group'), plus the additional capability to 'modify its members'. It clearly distinguishes this consolidated tool from its replaced predecessors (create_contact_group, update_contact_group, etc.), making its scope unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating this is a 'consolidated tool replacing' four specific tools, which implicitly guides when to use it (instead of those separate tools). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools listed, which prevents a perfect score.

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