manage_presentation_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies required parameters for each action and mentions a key API constraint (no arbitrary text anchoring). However, it omits permission requirements, error handling, or side effects like notifications. The 'resolve' action is ambiguous (marks resolved vs deletes).

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?

Description is concise with a clear header, bulleted actions, and a note. Every sentence is informative with no repetition or fluff. Structure allows quick scanning.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The description covers core functionality and a key limitation. However, it lacks comparison with similar sibling tools (e.g., manage_document_comment) and does not explain the effect of 'resolve' (e.g., if comments can be unresolved). Minor gaps for a simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that comment_content is needed for create and reply, comment_id for reply and resolve, and action values. It does not detail user_google_email or presentation_id, but those are standard. Overall, it adds substantial value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it manages comments on Google Presentations and lists three specific actions (create, reply, resolve). The inclusion of 'Slides comments are element-scoped via the API' differentiates it from document and spreadsheet comment tools, as seen in sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to create, reply, or resolve comments) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_presentation_comments or similar tools for docs/spreadsheets. It provides no guidance on when not to use it or best practices.

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