Create Comment on Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond those by explaining the anchored/unanchored behavior and documenting the return object shape. It does not contradict any annotation, and while it omits details like permissions or notification side effects, the description adds meaningful transparency for the core behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear starting sentence and uses structured sections (Args, Returns, Examples) that each earn their place. It is detailed but not bloated, and the examples are concise and illustrative.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by including the exact return JSON shape. It covers the required parameters, optional anchoring behavior, and provides two practical examples. For a tool of this complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects), the description is fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter descriptions and adds examples, but these examples (anchored vs unanchored) offer only marginal additional meaning beyond the schema's explicit field descriptions. No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a Google Doc.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_list_comments, drive_reply_to_comment, drive_resolve_comment, and drive_delete_comment by focusing on the creation action, and clarifies anchored vs unanchored variants.

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 examples of unanchored and anchored usage, which indirectly indicates when to use optional parameters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when-not-to-use. For instance, it does not say 'use drive_list_comments to read comments' or 'use drive_reply_to_comment for replies.' Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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