Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a deletion operation (implying a destructive mutation), it doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, reversible, or have side effects. The confirmation message in the Returns section adds some value but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal wording. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by combining some details.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return values, but lacks important context about authentication, error conditions, and behavioral implications. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for these 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 by documenting all three parameters in the Args section, including their types, required status, and default value for calendar_id. However, it doesn't explain what format event_id should be in or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('an existing event'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'modify_event' or other event-related tools, which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_event' or 'get_events'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or permission levels needed to delete events.

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