share-drive-item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'sharing invitation' is consistent. The description adds the detail that an email can optionally be sent, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether existing permissions are replaced, what happens on conflicts, or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description adds minimal additional behavioral context beyond the email note.

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 paragraph followed by a tip, totaling about three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys purpose and key usage hints. However, the tip could be integrated more seamlessly, and the description could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the main action, provides an example body, and explains roles. However, it lacks details on what the response contains (since no output schema exists), error conditions, prerequisites, or the effect on existing permissions. A more complete description would include expected return value or common errors.

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 (83%), providing descriptions for many parameters. The description's tip adds value by providing a concrete example of the body (e.g., { recipients: [{ email: 'user@example.com' }], roles: ['read'] }) and clarifying the roles list. While the schema already defines roles and recipients, the example makes usage more intuitive. This goes beyond the schema's structural definitions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 sends a sharing invitation for a driveItem. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-drive-item-share-link (which creates a link) and list-drive-item-permissions (which lists permissions). The verb 'Send a sharing invitation' with the resource 'driveItem' is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a tip with an example body and role guidance, implying usage for sharing with specific users. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., creating a share link) or when not to use it. The tip provides some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or context for alternative tools.

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