drive_add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., visibility), or return value. A mutation tool should at least indicate that it creates a comment and that the operation is irreversible.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It fits the minimal structure but lacks important details for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 the tool's complexity (simple, but no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites, return type, or how to obtain the fileId, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (fileId and content). No extra context like accepted formats or source of fileId is provided.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('a comment to a Google Drive file'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_get_comments, drive_update_comment, and drive_delete_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. For example, it does not differentiate from drive_create_reply (for replying to existing comments) or mention any prerequisites like file ownership or permissions.

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