manage_document_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the three actions and their parameter requirements but does not disclose side effects, whether resolve is destructive or reversible, permission prerequisites, or what the operation returns. The 'manage' framing leaves important behavioral outcomes vague 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 description is appropriately short, front-loads the core purpose, and structures actions as a clean bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema properties.

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?

The output schema exists, so return value details are not required in the description. The action-to-parameter mapping is useful, but the description lacks guidance on how to obtain a comment_id (e.g., via list_document_comments) and does not mention any necessary prerequisites. For a multi-action tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this leaves moderate gaps in operational context.

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 compensates by explicitly mapping each action value to the required parameters: create needs comment_content, reply needs comment_id and comment_content, resolve needs comment_id. This adds meaningful conditional semantics not present in the bare schema. It does not explain user_google_email and document_id, but these are standard required identifiers and less ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Manage comments on a Google Document') and enumerates the specific supported actions: create, reply, and resolve. This distinguishes it from sibling comment-manager tools for spreadsheets and presentations by explicitly naming the resource type. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource specification makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 by listing the actions and their required parameters, so an agent can infer the intended calls. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like list_document_comments to retrieve comment IDs, nor does it state alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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