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 'manages' implies mutation operations, the description lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions (e.g., calendar access), whether operations are reversible, error handling, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a multi-action mutation tool with 25 parameters and no 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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and supported actions. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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 (25 parameters, multiple mutation actions, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to address critical contextual aspects: it doesn't explain behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs), usage guidelines, or how parameters interact across different actions. For a versatile mutation tool, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond listing the four action types, which are already covered in the schema's 'action' parameter description. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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: 'Manages calendar events. Supports creating, updating, deleting, and RSVP.' It specifies the resource (calendar events) and the four supported actions, making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from any potential sibling tools (like 'get_events' which appears in the sibling list), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 lists the supported actions but doesn't indicate prerequisites, when to choose this over other event-related tools (e.g., 'get_events' for reading), or any context-specific considerations. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the action parameter alone.

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