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. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Creates a draft email'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the draft already exists. It mentions the return format but not the draft's persistence or visibility characteristics.

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 perfectly structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter documentation with helpful clarifications, and ends with return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and documents most parameters, but doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, draft lifecycle, or the purpose of the undocumented 'service' parameter. The return format is mentioned but not fully described.

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 60%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'to' can be left empty for drafts (important semantic nuance), explains that body is plain text, and provides a clear parameter-by-parameter breakdown. However, it doesn't explain the 'service' parameter at all, which appears in the schema but is undocumented in the description.

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 ('Creates a draft email') and resource ('in the user's Gmail account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_gmail_message. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context by specifying this creates a draft rather than sending immediately, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like send_gmail_message. It provides some guidance about the 'to' parameter being optional for drafts, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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