Manage per-workspace role delegation. Assign, list, or remove access for specific emails (view/comment/edit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email address (required for assign/remove) | ||
| action | Yes | Action: assign a role, list all roles, or remove a role | |
| permission | No | Permission level (required for assign) | |
| workspace_id | Yes | Workspace ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must carry full burden. It discloses actions (assign, list, remove) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility. Adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth for a mutating 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?
Single sentence efficiently covering purpose, actions, and scope with zero fluff.
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?
No output schema, so description should hint at return values. It does not. Also lacks info on authorization or idempotency. Otherwise adequate for a management tool.
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 description adds context beyond schema: 'per-workspace' scope ties workspace_id to role management, and enumerates permission levels matching schema. Provides marginal but useful additional meaning.
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?
Description clearly states it manages per-workspace role delegation with specific actions (assign, list, remove) and permission levels (view/comment/edit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_invite or drive_share which likely handle different aspects.
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?
Description implies usage for role management but lacks explicit when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., drive_invite, drive_share). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
