manage_spreadsheet_commentAdd, update, or delete comments on Google Sheets cells, and retrieve comment details by spreadsheet and comment ID.
Manage comments on a Google Spreadsheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cell | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| comment_id | No | ||
| spreadsheet_id | Yes | ||
| comment_content | No | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Input schema / properties / cellAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "type": "string"
+}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 disclose destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond the title — it does not say which actions are destructive, whether deletes are permanent, or what authentication setup is needed for a mutation tool.
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 single sentence is short but not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified rather than economical. There is no front-loaded actionable detail for an agent to act on.
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?
For a 6-parameter destructive mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to enumerate the actions (likely add/update/delete/resolve), the required parameter pairings, or any behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state.
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% with 6 parameters (action, cell, comment_id, comment_content, spreadsheet_id, user_google_email) and no enums. The description provides zero compensation: it never explains valid 'action' values, which parameters pair with which action, or what 'cell' format is expected.
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 verb 'manage' is vague and does not specify whether this creates, edits, deletes, or resolves comments, so an agent cannot predict the concrete operation. It does at least identify the resource (spreadsheet comments) and implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_spreadsheet_comments by signaling a mutating operation.
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_spreadsheet_comments or manage_document_comment/manage_presentation_comment. No prerequisites, no mention of the required 'action' semantics, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.