Resolve a comment in a Google Presentation by supplying the user's email, presentation ID, and comment ID to mark it as resolved.
Resolve a comment in a Google Presentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_google_email | Yes | ||
| presentation_id | Yes | ||
| comment_id | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Resolve' with no details on what resolving entails (e.g., changes status, idempotency, permissions, or side effects). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 concise and front-loaded, but under-specified. It is a single sentence that could easily have included more behavioral or param context without losing conciseness.
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 simple mutation tool with 3 required params and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention any behavioral context, prerequisites, or edge cases, relying entirely on the schema and output schema which are not described either.
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 does not explain any parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description does not add meaning or compensate for the missing schema details.
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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource 'a comment in a Google Presentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read, create, and reply for presentation comments.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolving document or spreadsheet comments, or when not to use it. The implied usage is only that it resolves a comment, but no context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.