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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining how to achieve archiving and deletion through label manipulation, which is crucial context beyond basic parameter documentation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 a clear purpose statement, usage examples, and parameter documentation. However, the Args and Returns sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and output schema, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 no annotations, the description does a good job explaining key behaviors (archiving/deleting via labels). The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, it could better address error cases or permissions given the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only add_label_ids and remove_label_ids have descriptions in the schema). The description adds minimal param semantics in the Args section, mostly restating what's in the schema. It doesn't explain label ID formats or provide examples, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Adds or removes labels from a Gmail message') and identifies the resource ('a Gmail message'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'manage_gmail_label' (which manages labels themselves) and 'batch_modify_gmail_message_labels' (which handles multiple messages).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool for specific operations: 'To archive an email, remove the INBOX label' and 'To delete an email, add the TRASH label.' This gives clear alternatives to other tools like 'delete_event' or general mutation tools.

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