Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates headers/footers and returns a confirmation message, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing content), if it requires specific permissions or authentication beyond the user email, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by defining the tool and explaining parameters. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating key details into the opening, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value (with an output schema present, so return details aren't needed). However, it misses behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and parameter explanations are basic. For a mutation tool without annotations, this leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 for undocumented parameters. It lists all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section with brief explanations (e.g., 'Text content for the header/footer'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., format of document_id, allowed values for section_type beyond 'header' or 'footer'), leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 headers or footers in a Google Doc.' It specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('headers or footers in a Google Doc'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_update_doc' or 'modify_doc_text', which could also modify document content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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., user authentication, document permissions), compare it to siblings like 'batch_update_doc' for bulk operations, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., formatting vs. content updates). 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.