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. It states the tool performs batch create/update/delete operations, implying mutations, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether operations are atomic or partial, error handling for failed items, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a complex mutation tool with no annotations, 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 two sentences with zero waste: it states the purpose and historical context. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that implies its function. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning the three actions upfront rather than in a list.

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 (batch mutations with 6 parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information. However, the schema is fully described (100% coverage) and there's an output schema (per context signals), which mitigates some gaps. The description does the minimum but leaves the agent to infer much from the schema.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the high-level actions. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that 'contacts' is for create, 'updates' for update, 'contact_ids' for delete) or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Batch create, update, or delete contacts.' It specifies the verb ('create, update, or delete') and resource ('contacts'), and distinguishes it from previous tools by noting it replaces batch_create_contacts, batch_update_contacts, and batch_delete_contacts. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_contact' or 'search_contacts' beyond the batch aspect.

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 it replaces three specific batch tools but doesn't explain when to use batch operations versus single-contact tools like 'manage_contact' or when to prefer other contact-related tools like 'search_contacts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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