Google Workspace MCP Server

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 adds some context beyond the basic purpose: it specifies that modifications are partial (optional parameters), describes the return value (confirmation message with link), and includes details like format examples (RFC3339, JSON reminders) and constraints (max 5 reminders). However, it lacks critical behavioral info such as authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation in a consistent format. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the reminders explanation is lengthy). Every section adds value, but the structure is more documentation-heavy than conversational.

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 (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description does well: it explains the purpose, documents all parameters thoroughly, and describes the return value. However, it's incomplete for a mutation tool—missing authentication needs, error handling, and behavioral constraints like idempotency or side effects. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but other gaps remain.

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?

The description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. For each of the 13 parameters, it adds meaning: clarifies required vs. optional, gives defaults (e.g., calendar_id default: 'primary'), explains formats (e.g., RFC3339 for times, JSON for reminders), provides examples, and describes behavior (e.g., add_google_meet: True adds, False removes, None leaves unchanged). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with 'Modifies an existing event,' specifying the verb (modifies) and resource (event). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_event' (creation) and 'delete_event' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'update_task' or 'modify_doc_text' beyond the event domain.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., event must exist), compare to sibling tools like 'create_event' or 'get_events', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., partial updates vs. full replacements). Usage is implied only by the tool name and purpose statement.

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