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 states 'Replace' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing notes. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With partial schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the gaps.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('speaker notes on a slide'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slides_speaker_notes' or 'format_slides_text', which would require a 5.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for updating existing notes versus creating new ones, or how it relates to tools like 'get_slides_speaker_notes' or 'modify_doc_text'.

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