Manage Document Comment

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the actions and the limitation about text anchoring. It does not detail further side effects (e.g., notifications), but it provides useful behavioral constraints.

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 well-structured with bullet points for each action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 params, 0% schema coverage) and existence of output schema, the description covers the essential parameter dependencies and behavioral nuances. It could mention that comments are document-level only, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining parameter dependencies: comment_content is needed for create/reply, comment_id for reply/resolve. It clarifies that comment_content is required for create, though schema marks it optional with default null. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as managing comments on a Google Document, listing three specific actions (create, reply, resolve). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_presentation_comment and manage_spreadsheet_comment by specifying 'document-level comment'.

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 explains when to use each action and required parameters (e.g., comment_content for create/reply, comment_id for reply/resolve). It also notes a limitation (Drive API cannot anchor comments to text). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for text-anchored comments).

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