create_document_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral details such as authentication requirements, whether the comment is anchored to a specific location, or the response format. This is a mutation tool, so more context is expected.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded and easy to parse. It avoids verbosity, but under-specification limits its value. Still, the brevity is appropriate for the simple action.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotation coverage, and no description-level parameter context, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Google auth), what inputs are needed, or any post-conditions. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves significant gaps in user guidance.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention user_google_email, document_id, or comment_content at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without clarification of user_google_email's role (e.g., the authenticated user vs. an attributor) the semantics remain ambiguous.

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 'Create a new comment on a Google Document' clearly specifies the verb (create), the resource (comment), and the target (Google Document). It distinguishes from sibling comment tools like read_document_comments, reply_to_document_comment, and resolve_document_comment.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_to_document_comment or read_document_comments. It does not mention any prerequisities, exclusions, or alternative scenarios, leaving the user to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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