update_drive_file_comment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that idempotency holds only when the comment body is unchanged, which is a useful nuance. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds constraints and idempotency. No redundant information.

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 complexity of 5 parameters with mutual exclusivity, the description covers the main purpose and constraint. It mentions idempotency condition. An output schema exists, so return details are covered. Some additional context about the 'drive' parameter could improve completeness, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has generic descriptions ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description clarifies the roles of filePath and fileId as alternative locators and the constraint to provide only one. However, it does not explain the 'drive' parameter or provide detailed semantics for each parameter.

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 'Update', the resource 'comment on a Drive file', and the resolution method 'by filePath or fileId'. It distinguishes from generic comment updates by specifying the Drive context and adds the constraint to provide only one locator.

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 guideline to provide only one locator, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_drive_file_comment or update_comment. It lacks explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance.

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