Manage file comments

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that delete removes comments permanently and is author-only, that quoted_text is display-only with no positional anchoring possible, that deleted comments can appear as tombstones, and that suggestions are untouchable. These caveats align with destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the overall purpose followed by per-action behavioral notes. It contains no filler, though it is one long run-on paragraph; breaking the action list into a structured format would improve scanability. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers operation semantics, prerequisites, limitations, and the response fields comments carry (author, timestamps, resolved state, quotedFileContent). It does not spell out return shapes for each action, but an agent has enough to select and invoke actions 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds conditional-parameter meaning the schema cannot express: which action requires which parameter, that content is a closing note for resolve/reopen rather than body text, and that quoted_text does not actually anchor a comment inside a document. This enriches the static schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Manages Drive comments on a file', then enumerates each action (list, get, create, reply, resolve, reopen, delete) with enough detail to distinguish it from any sibling. It also explicitly carves out 'Docs suggestions' as out of scope, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use each action and notes a key exclusion: 'Not for Docs suggestions — those are a Docs feature this API cannot touch.' It does not point to an alternative tool for suggestions, but it is clear that this tool is the right one for Drive comments and not for that adjacent use case.

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