Mariana Google MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses key behavioral traits: persistence ('appears in Gmail'), non-immediate delivery ('manual review'), and write-operation nature. Could improve by mentioning return values or error conditions.

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. Front-loaded with action verb, second sentence provides critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriate for complexity level with rich input schema. Covers creation workflow and persistence. Minor gap: no mention of return value (draft ID) or success indication, which would be helpful 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 the baseline applies. Description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., format examples for comma-separated fields), but schema adequately documents all 6 parameters including the default 'primary' account.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') and resource ('draft email') with explicit scope limitation ('Does NOT send'). The clarification distinguishes it from sending operations and sibling tools like gmail_read or gmail_search.

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?

Clearly establishes the workflow (creates draft for manual review) and explicitly states what it does not do (send immediately). Lacks explicit naming of sibling alternatives (e.g., if a send tool exists), but provides sufficient context for correct selection.

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