drive_delete_permission

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

The description discloses that this is a destructive action (removing a permission) but provides no additional context such as irreversibility, ownership requirements, or impact on file access. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and falls short of disclosing behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, direct sentence that states the core function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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 simple delete operation, the description is functional but lacks important context such as how to obtain the permission_id (e.g., via drive_list_permissions) or any caveats about ownership or failed deletions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still feels incomplete for a mutation 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining the roles of file_id and permission_id. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema field names already imply, so it fails to bridge the coverage gap.

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 action 'Remove' and the object 'a sharing permission from a file', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_share_file (adds permission) and drive_list_permissions (lists permissions).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The use case is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to list permissions first to obtain the permission ID, or any exclusions.

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