Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool performs a 'move' operation (implying mutation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the move is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some context about what gets moved but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place by explaining parameter purposes. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling given it's a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of each parameter in the 'Args' section. It clarifies that 'parent' is for making a task a subtask, 'previous' is for positioning, and 'destination_task_list' is for moving between lists. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 specific action ('Move a task') and the possible destinations ('different position or parent within the same list, or to a different list'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_task', 'delete_task', 'update_task', and 'list_tasks' by focusing specifically on repositioning tasks within or between lists.

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 implies usage scenarios (moving within same list vs. between lists, changing parent/position) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' for other modifications or 'create_task' for new tasks. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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