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 full burden. It states the tool executes a function but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., script errors, rate limits), or the nature of the output. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs arbitrary code execution.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while stating the core action clearly.

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 (executing arbitrary functions) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but omits crucial context like safety, permissions, and typical use cases. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to guide the agent in a server with many Google service tools.

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 already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, typical values, or execution context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to compensate with any extra insights.

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 ('executes') and target ('a function in a deployed script'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'update_script_content' or 'get_script_content'—it's a generic execution tool without specifying what types of functions it runs or their typical 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployed script), exclusions, or typical use cases. Given the many sibling tools for various Google services, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios for script execution.

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