resolve_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 action 'resolve' without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the comment is already resolved. This is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. It is not verbose, but the extreme brevity limits its usefulness; still, for this dimension, it is well-structured.

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 relatively simple, but without annotations or output schema details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected outcome or the meaning of resolving a comment, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. For instance, it does not clarify whether user_google_email is the authenticated user or the comment author, and it gives no context for comment_id or document_id.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' and identifies the resource as 'a comment in a Google Document,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document_comment or reply_to_document_comment. However, it does not define what 'resolve' means in the context of Google Docs (e.g., marking the comment as resolved), which would enhance clarity.

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 also does not mention prerequisites like authentication or that the comment must be unresolved.

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