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. While 'Find and replace text' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (overwrites original text), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens when no matches are found. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that modifies content.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter explanations for the undocumented parameters.

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 60%, with three parameters having descriptions (find_text, replace_text, match_case) and two lacking (user_google_email, presentation_id). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, nor does it explain the purpose of the undocumented parameters. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Find and replace') and resource ('text throughout a presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_and_replace_doc', which appears to perform a similar function but for documents rather than presentations.

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 like 'find_and_replace_doc' for documents or 'format_all_slides_text' for formatting slides. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or constraints, such as needing edit access to the presentation.

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