Google Workspace MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail about what happens on partial updates or conflicts.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. While efficient, the opening statement 'Update an existing task' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but important operational details like authentication requirements, error handling, and side effects are missing, making it incomplete for safe agent 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%, but the description provides excellent parameter documentation. It clearly explains all 7 parameters, their types, which are required, optional values, and even includes format specifications (RFC 3339 format for 'due') and enum values for 'status'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_event' or 'update_task_list', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that modify data (modify_event, modify_gmail_message_labels, update_task_list), but the description offers no comparison or context about appropriate use cases.

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