FastMCP Google Docs Manager

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. It states the tool creates a new document, implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and parameters.

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 (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address key usage aspects for a creation tool.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the parameters are for 'title and body content', which maps directly to the two parameters in the schema (title and content). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about these parameters. The description compensates somewhat by naming them, but does not provide format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Create a new Google Doc') and specifies the resource ('Google Doc'), which is a specific document type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_documents' and 'read_document' by focusing on creation rather than listing or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other creation tools beyond the context provided.

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 'list_documents' or 'read_document'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as authentication needs or when creation is appropriate versus reading existing documents. There is no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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