Manage Document Comment

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description explains the behavior of each action (create, reply, resolve) and their required parameters, plus a limitation for create. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though it does not cover potential error states or side effects like rate limits.

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 extremely concise, using a short introductory line followed by a clear bullet-like list of actions with required parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information. The structure is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 actions, 5 params, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and a notable limitation. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema. However, it omits details on some required parameters (user_google_email, document_id) and does not mention default values or null handling. Still, it is largely complete for actionable use.

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 coverage, the description fully bears the burden. It explains which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., comment_content for create, comment_id for reply/resolve). However, it does not describe the meaning of 'user_google_email' or 'document_id', nor any constraints on string formats or allowed values for 'action'. The added value is moderate, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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 'Manage comments on a Google Document' and lists three specific actions (create, reply, resolve), providing a clear purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools for other document types (presentation, spreadsheet) and includes a useful limitation note about text anchoring. However, the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic, and the description could be more explicit about the overall scope.

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 implies usage for Google Docs comments and notes a key limitation (cannot anchor to text via Drive API). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_document_comments for reading) or when not to use it. The guidance is mostly implied, missing explicit exclusion criteria.

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