MCP Gemini Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Deletes') and specifies the required parameter format, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the cache doesn't exist. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each earn their place: states the action, specifies the required input, and describes the output. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose, parameter requirement, and expected return, but doesn't address important considerations like error handling, permissions, or side effects that would be valuable for a deletion tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter requirement and providing the same example format ('cachedContents/abc123xyz') that's already in the schema. It doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 specific action ('Deletes') and target resource ('a specific cached content resource'), distinguishing it from siblings like gemini_getCache (read) and gemini_updateCache (modify). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by specifying it requires 'the unique cache name' and mentioning the expected resource format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like gemini_listCaches for discovery or gemini_updateCache for modification.

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