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 discloses that the tool modifies labels (implying mutation) and gives examples of archiving/deleting via label changes, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, with three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the core function, providing archiving guidance, and providing deletion guidance. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient for an agent 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 moderate complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key usage scenarios but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 4 parameters (e.g., 'user_google_email' as required email, 'add_label_ids' as label IDs to add). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as label ID formats or examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Adds or removes labels') on a specific resource ('a Gmail message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'batch_modify_gmail_message_labels' (which handles multiple messages) and other Gmail tools focused on content retrieval or sending. It precisely defines the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool for specific actions ('To archive an email, remove the INBOX label. To delete an email, add the TRASH label.'), offering practical examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'batch_modify_gmail_message_labels' for bulk operations or clarify when not to use it (e.g., for other email modifications).

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