Create a reply to a Google Drive comment with plain text, or resolve/reopen the comment thread. Use it to respond to file feedback and manage comment status.
Create a reply to a comment. Send content, or an action of resolve or reopen. content is required if no action is specified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reply | Yes | The reply to create. | |
| fileId | Yes | The ID of the file. | |
| commentId | Yes | The ID of the comment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating external operation. The description adds the conditional requirement between content and action, but that same rule is already stated in the content field's schema description, so it contributes little beyond structured data. Permissions/scopes and response behavior are not mentioned.
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 short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the payload options, and no sentence is redundant.
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 simple create tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around required scopes and confirmation of a returned reply object, but nothing blocking.
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 all three parameters and the nested reply object are already documented with descriptions, including the enum values resolve/reopen and the content requirement. The description restates the content/action relationship rather than adding new semantics, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a reply to a comment.' An agent can tell this apart from unrelated siblings like gdrive_comments_list or gdrive_permissions_create, though the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from any near-neighbor tool.
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?
Usage is implied by the guidance to 'Send `content`, or an `action` of `resolve` or `reopen`,' which tells the agent what to supply but not when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what preconditions exist (e.g., the comment must already exist in the file). No explicit when-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.