Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool modifies an existing event (implying mutation) and describes the return value, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions (e.g., calendar write access), whether modifications are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid event_id), rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context (e.g., format examples for parameters) but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but it's lengthy due to detailed parameter documentation. While this detail is necessary given the schema coverage gap, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., repetitive 'If None, preserves existing...' patterns). The structure (purpose, args, returns) is clear, but the bulkiness slightly reduces efficiency.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (returns a confirmation string), the description is largely complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) that would be crucial for safe invocation, preventing a perfect score.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 15 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address. Required.'), format requirements (e.g., RFC3339 for time fields), default values (e.g., calendar_id default: 'primary'), constraints (e.g., max 5 reminders), and behavioral effects (e.g., 'If None, preserves existing color.'). This goes far beyond what the bare 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 tool's purpose: 'Modifies an existing event.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_event' and 'delete_event'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other modification tools in the sibling list, such as 'modify_doc_text' or 'modify_sheet_values', beyond the resource type.

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., needing an existing event), compare it to 'create_event' for new events, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The only implied usage is modifying events, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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