manage_document_commentCreate and manage comments on a Google Document by adding, listing, replying to, or resolving feedback threads.
Manage comments on a Google Document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| comment_id | No | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| comment_content | No | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / comment_content / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / comment_content / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / properties / comment_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / comment_id / typeAdded value: +"string"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. However, the description adds no context about what 'manage' entails, which actions are supported, or what gets destroyed when destructive actions are invoked.
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, so it is concise and front-loaded, but it provides almost no structured detail. It avoids waste but also fails to earn its place by conveying meaningful information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutating tool with five parameters, an undefined action string, and destructive annotations, the description is far too incomplete to guide correct invocation.
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 says nothing about any of the five parameters. The critical 'action' parameter has no enum and no explanation, leaving the agent unable to determine valid actions or how comment_id and comment_content are used.
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 names the resource (comments on a Google Document) but uses the vague verb 'Manage', which could mean create, edit, delete, or resolve. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_document_comments, which handles the read-only listing case.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_document_comments or other comment-related tools. The description also omits any prerequisites or conditions under which the tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.