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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the Args section is somewhat detailed, which is acceptable given the parameter complexity.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and 4 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return value, but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The output schema exists, so describing return values isn't needed, but overall coverage is adequate with clear gaps.

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 documenting all 4 parameters in the Args section, including their types, purposes, and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain edge cases or validation rules.

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: 'Updates the publish settings of a form.' It specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('publish settings of a form'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form', which would require a 5.

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., needing an existing form), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form'. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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