Mariana Google MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the non-destructive nature and exact string manipulation performed. Missing idempotency details (e.g., double-prefixing risk) and return value description.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the mechanism, second clarifies the safety constraint. Perfectly front-loaded with the most critical distinction (soft vs hard delete).

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?

Adequate for a simple flagging operation with no annotations. Covers the essential behavioral contract, though return value specification would strengthen completeness given the lack of output schema.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description focuses on behavior rather than repeating parameter documentation, which is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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?

Explicitly states the specific action (soft-delete by prepending 'DELETE - ' to title) and clearly distinguishes from actual deletion, differentiating it from potential hard-delete siblings and general update tools.

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?

Provides crucial behavioral context by clarifying 'Does NOT actually delete the event,' which guides the agent away from using this when true deletion is needed. Lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over calendar_update or if a hard-delete alternative exists.

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