share-drive-item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the behavioral note that an email may be sent to recipients (sendInvitation) via the TIP, but it does not disclose that permissions persist and are only removable via delete-drive-item-permission, nor does it mention 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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the TIP section is cleanly separated with an example and role list. Dense but efficient — every part earns its place, though the single-sentence TIP runs long.

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?

For a nested-body operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential calling behavior: recipient format, roles, sendInvitation, message, and requireSignIn. It omits some body fields (password, expirationDateTime, retainInheritedPermissions), but these are documented in the schema, keeping the burden on the description manageable.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The TIP adds genuine value beyond the schema by enumerating the valid role values ('read', 'write', 'owner') and giving a concrete body example with the correct field shapes — details the schema does not provide.

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-resource pair ('Send a sharing invitation for a driveItem') and the effect (provides permissions and optionally sends notification email). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling create-drive-item-share-link, which creates anonymous links rather than granting permissions to named recipients.

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 TIP explicitly frames the use case — 'Shares a file or folder with specific users' — which implies choosing this over link-based sharing alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with or state when NOT to use it, leaving part of the routing to inference.

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