Google Workspace MCP VE

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions moving slides but fails to specify if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, or details about error handling and response format. This leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks depth on usage, behavior, and parameter context, leaving room for improvement.

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 50%, with only two parameters ('slide_object_ids' and 'insertion_index') having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'user_google_email' or 'presentation_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 action ('Move') and resource ('one or more slides'), specifying the operation's purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_slide' or 'format_all_slides_text', which also manipulate slides but for different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing slide object IDs from a presentation, or comparisons to other slide manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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