batch_share_drive_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses sequential processing, dry_run functionality, and that the return is a success/failure summary. However, it does not mention error handling for partial failures, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters and a return value statement. Every sentence adds value and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 complexity (batch operation, nested objects) and absence of annotations, the description covers the essential: return value, dry_run behavior, sequential processing. It lacks details on error handling, permissions, and rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage. An output schema is implied (returns a string), which helps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing and explaining each parameter (user_google_email, file_id, recipients, send_notification, email_message, dry_run). The nested $defs also provide descriptions for ShareRecipient fields. This is thorough, though some parameter behavior (e.g., default values) could be better integrated.

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 tool shares a Google Drive file or folder with multiple users or groups in a single operation. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like share_drive_file (single share) and update_drive_permission (modifying existing 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?

The description mentions sequential processing and suggests splitting large recipient lists, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like share_drive_file for single recipients. The context implies batch use but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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