add_account

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that a browser window opens on the server host and that the call blocks for up to 3 minutes awaiting sign-in. Missing pieces are what happens on timeout/failure and whether it returns the created account identifier.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the interactive constraint. The CLI sentence is dense and useful, though recommending an external command inside a tool description risks pulling the agent away from invoking the tool at all.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers the interactive/blocking nature well, but it leaves parameter meaning and return-value expectations undocumented. For an authentication tool that can hang for minutes, a note on timeout behavior and failure modes would round it out.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. The CLI example at least surfaces the `--alias NAME --group GROUP` names, but it never explains what an alias or a group actually means, whether they are optional, or what happens when they are omitted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Connect a new Gmail account,' which clearly separates it from list_accounts, assign_account, and remove_account. It stops short of explicitly articulating the boundary with assign_account (which presumably attaches an already-authenticated account), so a perfect score isn't warranted.

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?

It does provide a routing hint by saying 'Prefer the CLI: gmail-mcp add-account ...', which tells the agent an out-of-band alternative exists. However, it never states when this MCP tool is the right choice (e.g., no CLI available, headless vs GUI hosts) or what to do if the browser cannot be opened.

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