Google Docs MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the action ('Change a permission's role') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key usage note. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (not provided in details but indicated as present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites beyond the permission ID note. The schema covers parameters well, but the description could do more to address the tool's operational 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'new_role' is described as 'New permission role: 'reader', 'writer', or 'commenter''). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance 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 ('Change a permission's role') and identifies the resource ('permission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'share_document' or 'remove_permission' that also deal with permissions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 some guidance by mentioning that 'The permission ID can be obtained from list_permissions,' which implies a prerequisite relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'share_document' or 'remove_permission,' nor does it specify any exclusions or contextual constraints.

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