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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Resolve' implies a mutation (likely marking a comment as resolved), but the description doesn't specify what 'resolve' entails (e.g., closing the comment, changing its status), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output might be. This is a significant gap 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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, 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 mutation nature (implied by 'resolve'), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description doesn't address key aspects like behavioral effects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the three required parameters (comment_id, spreadsheet_id, user_google_email), such as their formats, sources, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 resource ('comment in a Google Spreadsheet'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'resolve_document_comment' or 'resolve_presentation_comment' beyond specifying the spreadsheet context, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope among similar comment-resolution tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing comment access), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'reply_to_spreadsheet_comment', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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