drive_add_comment

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., creating a visible comment), permission requirements, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving the agent to guess about operational constraints.

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 of eight words, efficiently front-loading the action and object. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple with two required parameters and an output schema, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks context about required permissions, whether the file must already exist, or how the tool behaves if the comment cannot be added, which limits completeness for an agent operating with no annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and only provides parameter names ('file_id', 'content'). The description does not explicitly explain these parameters; it only implies that 'a Drive file' maps to file_id and 'a comment' maps to content. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's existing titles.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment to a Drive file'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool drive_list_comments, which handles reading comments rather than adding them.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context about when it is appropriate (e.g., needing edit permissions, or comparing to drive_list_comments for reading).

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