Add a comment or reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: programmatically-created comments are not anchored to specific text. This is valuable context beyond the basic mutation. It doesn't mention permissions or response behavior, but the anchoring limitation is a significant disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the critical replyTo parameter explanation and API limitation. No wasted words, all information is relevant.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and key limitations. It addresses the main usage scenarios (comment vs reply) and references the source of replyTo IDs. It doesn't detail error handling or return values, but there is no output schema and the tool's behavior is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 50% (only account and replyTo have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining replyTo semantics ('a comment id from list_comments') and the behavior when replyTo is omitted. It does not explicitly describe documentId or content, but these are straightforward and self-evident from the parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Add a comment to a Google Doc, or reply to an existing comment thread'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_comments and resolve_comment by describing both operations (comment and reply) and referencing the companion tool list_comments for obtaining replyTo IDs.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for adding a comment or replying to an existing thread (by passing replyTo from list_comments). It also explains the limitation of new comments not being anchored. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when NOT to use it.

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