manage_spreadsheet_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only lists the three actions and their required parameters. It does not explain the consequences of resolving a comment, whether replies are appended in a threaded view, permission requirements, or any irreversible behavior.

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, directly front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses a clear bulleted action format. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 the description's responsibility, and the core actions are covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it omits key operational context such as how to obtain comment IDs, what happens after resolving, and when the tool would be inappropriate to 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?

The input schema has no property descriptions, so the description's mapping of action to required parameters is valuable: create requires comment_content, while reply and resolve require comment_id. It does not fully explain the meaning of user_google_email or spreadsheet_id, but these are reasonably inferable from context and the schema.

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 the resource ('comments on a Google Spreadsheet') and enumerates the supported operations (create, reply, resolve), making it easy for an agent to know what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_document_comment by explicitly mentioning 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 description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as list_spreadsheet_comments for retrieving comment IDs or manage_document_comment for Docs comments. It also does not mention prerequisites like running start_google_auth or how to obtain a comment_id.

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