manage_presentation_commentCreate, update, reply to, or delete comments on a Google Slides presentation to organize feedback and resolve discussion threads.
Manage comments on a Google Presentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| comment_id | No | ||
| comment_content | No | ||
| presentation_id | Yes | ||
| 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, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is known from structure. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say which actions are destructive, whether deletions are reversible, or what permissions the user_google_email must hold.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so there is no padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the barest restatement of the title.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the input side is unusable: a required "action" parameter with zero documented values alongside a 0% coverage schema. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool, the description is fundamentally incomplete.
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 there are five parameters, including a required free-form "action" string with no enum. The description supplies no meaning for action, comment_id, or comment_content, so an agent cannot determine valid values or how parameters relate to one another.
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 name and description combine a verb ("manage") with a resource (comments on a Google Presentation), which is enough to distinguish it from manage_document_comment and manage_spreadsheet_comment. However "manage" is a catch-all that leaves the actual operations (create/edit/delete/resolve) unspecified, so the purpose is only implied.
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 versus list_presentation_comments, which sits right next to it in the sibling list. Nothing indicates whether this tool creates, edits, deletes, or resolves comments, or what preconditions must hold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.