Permanently remove a comment from a Drive file. Only the author's delete request succeeds; supply fileId and commentId.
Permanently delete a comment. Only the comment's own author can delete it — the API rejects the request otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | The file the comment belongs to | |
| commentId | Yes | The comment to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the author-only restriction and the permanent nature of the deletion. It also clarifies that the API rejects unauthorized requests, which goes beyond the basic annotation hints. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: permanence, authorization, and rejection. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., deleting replies) or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is nearly 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (fileId, commentId) have adequate descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'comment', making the action unambiguous. It also adds 'permanently' to clarify irreversibility, distinguishing it from soft-delete or update operations. While it doesn't name a sibling, the resource specificity is sufficient to differentiate from other delete tools.
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 provides a key prerequisite (only the author can delete) but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like drive_comments_update or drive_comments_get. The usage context is implied by the resource and action, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.