Google Docs MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('Mark a comment as resolved') and a key limitation about persistence due to Google API constraints, adding valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise NOTE addressing a critical limitation. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and a key limitation, but could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or linking to sibling tools for context.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('document_id' and 'comment_id'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Mark a comment as resolved') with the resource ('a comment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_comment', 'get_comment', 'list_comments', and 'reply_to_comment' by focusing on resolution rather than deletion, retrieval, listing, or replying.

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 implies usage when needing to resolve a comment, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_comment' for removal or 'reply_to_comment' for engagement). The NOTE provides a limitation but not comparative guidance.

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