drive_replies_create

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical runtime behavior: resolving is advisory only, the API continues accepting replies, and the client must act on resolved=true. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect that annotations like readOnlyHint=false do not convey.

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, all information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The follow-up sentences explain the content/action relationship and the advisory resolution behavior without any filler or repetition of the schema.

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 absence of an output schema, the description still covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: required parameters are implied, the action/content interplay is explained, and the unusual advisory-only resolution behavior is disclosed. No significant invocation-relevant context is missing.

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, but the description adds relational semantics: content is required unless action is set, both can be combined, and action mutates the parent comment's resolved field. This clarifies how the parameters interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Add a reply to a comment, or resolve/reopen it.' It clearly differentiates the tool from comment-level operations by stating that resolution/reopening is only done through posting a reply with an action set.

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 to use this tool versus alternatives: 'a comment can only be resolved or reopened by posting a reply with action set.' It also gives the content/action precondition, telling the agent exactly when content is required and when action suffices.

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