drive_comments_create

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: Drive stores the anchor as an opaque, unvalidated JSON string, and editor apps will still show such comments as unanchored. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect and limitation an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: a clear one-line purpose, a key parameter nuance, and an important caveat with an alternative. The most essential information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 create operation, the description, schema, and annotations together give the agent everything needed: required parameters, the anchor behavior, the visual limitation, and a pointer to better alternatives. No critical gap remains 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the anchor parameter's semantics in depth: it is app-defined, opaque to Drive, not validated, and ignored visually by Workspace editors. It does not add anything about content or fileId, but the schema already covers those clearly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a file.' It clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling comment list/get/update/delete tools and even contrasts it with the Docs/Sheets/Slides APIs for anchoring.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool is appropriate and when it is not: use it for app-defined anchors, but use the Docs/Sheets/Slides APIs directly if visual anchoring in those editors matters. This gives the agent a clear decision rule versus a named alternative.

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