create-drive-item-share-link

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

Description notes that existing links may be returned and permissions inherit from ancestors. However, annotations indicate 'destructiveHint: true', but description does not elaborate on what modifications or potential disruptions (e.g., overwriting existing link?) occur. Could be more explicit about side effects.

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?

Concise description with front-loaded action, a useful tip, and comparison with sibling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, usage comparison, basic body structure, and return value. Missing details on prerequisites, password handling, and implications of 'openWorldHint' annotation. Still fairly comprehensive for a moderately complex 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?

Description provides a body template with specific enum values for type and scope, and explains expirationDateTime and retainInheritedPermissions. Schema coverage is 80%, so description adds valuable context beyond raw schema. However, it omits explanation of 'message', 'recipients', and 'sendNotification' parameters.

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 it creates a sharing link for a drive item, and explains idempotent behavior (returns existing link if same type exists). It distinguishes from sibling 'share-drive-item' by noting this tool does not send email invitations.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool when only a URL is needed without notifications, and pairs with 'share-drive-item' for explicit access. Provides clear when-to-use and 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.