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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: enforcement at the proxy layer regardless of Drive permissions, the one-way nature (only set to true), and the user-only revert path via ShareWatch Files page. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing essential behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, both documented), the existence of an output schema, and the rich behavioral disclosure in the description, nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret the tool is missing. It covers purpose, constraints, enforcement, and reversal path.

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 coverage is 100%, so both file_id and read_only are already described in the schema. The description adds a minor clarification about the one-way behavior (already present in the schema's read_only description) but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Mark'), resource ('file'), and state ('read-only'), and explicitly explains what read-only means ('can be read but not updated through ShareWatch'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_file or block_file, which have different effects on file access.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to make a file read-only) and provides a crucial usage constraint: 'read_only=false is refused'. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., block_file for full blocking) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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