comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly warns that deletions mutate the workbook and that 'read' returns None when no comment exists. It also specifies return types for each action, offering solid behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a clear Args section, a Returns line, and a Notes section. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 tool is complex due to four distinct actions and six parameters, but the description covers all actions, parameter requirements, return types, and mutation effects. The output schema further clarifies return formats, making this description complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter's role and the conditional requirements based on action. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on formats like cell_ref or the structure of CommentInfo.

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 'Add, read, delete or list cell comments on a sheet,' which precisely specifies the tool's verbs and resource (cell comments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_cells' or 'write_cells' and clearly conveys the multi-action nature.

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 per-action usage requirements (e.g., 'add' requires cell_ref and text; 'read' requires cell_ref) and notes that 'list' returns all comments for the sheet. While it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, the action enum itself clearly delineates the intended use cases.

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