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 states the action ('Resolve') but does not explain what 'resolve' entails (e.g., marking as resolved, deleting, archiving), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the outcome looks like. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks crucial details about behavior and parameters, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (user_google_email, presentation_id, comment_id) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to explain what these inputs represent or their expected formats, leaving them entirely undocumented.

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 action ('Resolve') and resource ('a comment in a Google Presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'resolve_document_comment' or 'resolve_spreadsheet_comment', which perform similar actions on different Google Workspace resources, missing an opportunity for explicit distinction.

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 'reply_to_presentation_comment' or other comment-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing comment to resolve, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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