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. It mentions the supported actions but fails to describe critical behavioral traits: it does not specify required permissions, whether operations are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing deployments), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and supported actions. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient 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 (managing deployments with multiple actions), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, and does not guide usage relative to siblings. While the output schema may cover return values, the description should still provide context for safe and effective use, which it does not.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the input schema, which has 100% schema description coverage. It mentions the actions ('creating, updating, and deleting') but does not explain parameter dependencies, such as when 'deployment_id' or 'description' are required. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra semantic value.

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: 'Manages Apps Script deployments. Supports creating, updating, and deleting deployments.' It specifies the verb ('manages') and resource ('Apps Script deployments'), and lists the supported actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deployments' or 'create_version', which reduces clarity in distinguishing its specific role.

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 lacks information on prerequisites, such as when to choose 'create' vs. 'update' vs. 'delete', or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_deployments' or 'create_version'. There is no mention of context-specific usage or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate application.

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