Manage Spreadsheet Comment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds meaningful context: a note that the Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text and that Sheets comments are cell-scoped. This helps set expectations about what the create action can and cannot do. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact and well-structured with a brief overview followed by a bulleted action list. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the API limitation note is placed where relevant. No redundant phrasing.

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 moderately complex multi-action tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, required parameters, and a key API constraint. It does not explain how cell scope is specified in practice or what happens with an invalid action, but the output schema and annotation context cover some gaps. Overall it is adequate for correct selection and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does so effectively by mapping each action to its required parameters (create→comment_content; reply→comment_id+comment_content; resolve→comment_id). It leaves user_google_email and spreadsheet_id implicit, but their roles are reasonably inferable from the tool name and context. The nullable comment_id and comment_content are partially clarified through action-specific requirements.

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 it manages comments on a Google Spreadsheet and enumerates three specific actions (create, reply, resolve) with a verb+resource pattern. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_document_comment and manage_presentation_comment by explicitly scoping to spreadsheets.

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 action list with required parameters provides clear guidance on when to use each sub-operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like list_spreadsheet_comments for read-only comment retrieval. The note about API limitations implies trade-offs but no explicit exclusions.

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