Reply to a specific comment in a Google Presentation by providing the presentation ID, comment ID, and reply content.
Reply to a specific comment in a Google Presentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_google_email | Yes | ||
| presentation_id | Yes | ||
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| reply_content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It only states 'Reply to a specific comment' without mentioning auth, irreversibility, or any effects on the presentation.
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 a single concise sentence, with no filler words, making it easy to parse.
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?
The tool has 4 required parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides no operational context, return value expectations, or error conditions. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged by the description.
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%, and the description adds no parameter information. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters (e.g., how comment_id relates to presentation_id).
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 action (reply) and the target (a specific comment in a Google Presentation), distinguishing it from sibling comment tools for documents and spreadsheets.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like reply_to_document_comment or reply_to_spreadsheet_comment, nor are any preconditions or contexts mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.