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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('Deletes'), requires specific authentication (Google AI Studio API keys), has platform limitations (not Vertex AI), and returns a success confirmation. This covers safety, auth needs, and output expectations well.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides critical usage constraints, third clarifies return value. Each sentence adds essential information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete—covering purpose, constraints, auth, and return. It could slightly improve by mentioning irreversible deletion or error cases, but it's largely adequate given the simple single-parameter schema.

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 (fileName). The description repeats the parameter example ('files/abc123xyz') but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('a specific file previously uploaded to the Gemini API'), distinguishing it from siblings like gemini_getFile (read) and gemini_uploadFile (create). It precisely defines the operation's scope and target.

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 with the NOTE about API support limitations (not Vertex AI, only Google AI Studio), which helps determine when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like gemini_deleteCache or when not to use it (e.g., for non-file resources).

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