Permanently remove a reply from a Drive file comment when you are the reply's author. Specify file, comment, and reply IDs to delete it.
Permanently delete a reply. Only the reply's own author can delete it — the API rejects the request otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | The file the comment belongs to | |
| replyId | Yes | The reply to delete | |
| commentId | Yes | The parent comment |
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, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Permanently delete' aligns with those. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the author-only permission requirement and the fact that deletion is permanent. It does not contradict the 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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and the most important constraint (author-only) are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 destructive delete tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: permanence and authorization. It does not mention idempotency or what happens if the reply is already deleted, but the annotations already cover idempotency, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (fileId, commentId, replyId). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('a reply'), and a critical scoping constraint (only the reply's own author can delete it). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_replies_update or drive_comments_delete without needing to inspect the schema.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a reply must be permanently removed, and it explicitly warns that the API rejects requests from non-authors. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the author-only constraint provides strong usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.