Add comments to Google Slides presentations using a security-hardened integration that prevents data exfiltration while maintaining collaboration capabilities.
Create a new comment on a Google Presentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_google_email | Yes | ||
| presentation_id | Yes | ||
| comment_content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Create') but does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple action it describes, earning a high score for efficiency.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and behavioral details (like whether authentication is needed). The tool has 3 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, so more context is needed for correct invocation.
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 compensate. It implies that 'comment_content' is the text of the comment and 'presentation_id' identifies the presentation, but it does not explain 'user_google_email' or any parameter syntax/format. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
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 ('Create a new comment') and the target resource ('Google Presentation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reply_to_presentation_comment' by specifying 'new' and from doc/spreadsheet comment tools by naming the resource.
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, no prerequisites are mentioned, and there are no exclusions. The description merely states the tool's function without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.