Google Workspace MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states the action without details. It does not cover permissions required, whether resolution is reversible, effects on the presentation or comment thread, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

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, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description does not address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving the tool inadequately documented for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain the meaning or format of 'comment_id', 'presentation_id', or 'user_google_email', nor their relationships. This fails to address the undocumented parameters, resulting in inadequate semantic clarity.

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 states the action ('Resolve') and target ('a comment in a Google Presentation'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'resolve' entails (e.g., marking as resolved, deleting, archiving) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_document_comment' or 'resolve_spreadsheet_comment', making it vague in comparison.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing comment access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools such as 'reply_to_presentation_comment' or 'read_presentation_comments', leaving usage context unclear.

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