Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates events but doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether events are immediately published, error conditions, or rate limits. The return statement mentions a confirmation message but doesn't describe failure modes or what happens with invalid inputs.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence serves a purpose - defining the tool, documenting parameters, and describing the return. It could be slightly more concise in the parameter explanations but overall is efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job with parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, or how this tool relates to sibling calendar tools. The return description is helpful but incomplete without error case coverage.

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 provides excellent parameter documentation with clear explanations for all 10 parameters, including format examples (RFC3339), default values ('primary'), optionality indicators, and practical usage notes. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Creates a new event' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_event' or 'delete_event', though the verb 'creates' implies a distinction. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'modify_event' or 'get_events'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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