Create, reply to, resolve or delete a comment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses critical behaviors: delete permanently removes the comment and all replies, resolve is the reversible alternative, quoted_text cannot anchor to a live range and will appear at document level, and an OAuth Drive scope is required. This adds substantial context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but efficiently organized by action, with each clause carrying useful information. It avoids boilerplate and front-loads the core action semantics while including edge-case caveats like the non-public anchor format and permanence of delete.

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 multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers every action, parameter requirements, side effects, reversibility, source of identifiers, and authentication scope. An agent has enough context to select the right action and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful parameter-level nuance: quoted_text behavior and limitations, action-specific meaning of content (optional closing reply for resolve/reopen, required for create/reply), and where document_id/comment_id come from. This goes well beyond the 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 explicitly states it manages comment threads via the Drive API and enumerates the five distinct actions (create, reply, resolve, reopen, delete). It names the specific resource (comments) and clearly differentiates each action's effect, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from a read-only comments tool.

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 gives explicit per-action guidance: what parameters each action requires, that resolve is reversible while delete is permanent, and that comment_id comes from list_comments. It does not explicitly say 'for read-only comment access use list_comments', but it does reference list_comments and clearly distinguishes action choices.

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