drive_share_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses that sharing exposes the file and requires confirm: true as a safety gate. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not detail all side effects, but the most critical safety aspect is articulated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the confirm requirement is a crucial addition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and its key caveat.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: sharing equates to creating a permission and requires confirmation. The schema handles parameter details. It could mention the return value or consequences, but the current level is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by labeling it a 'safety gate' and tying it to the exposure risk. This goes beyond the schema's simple boolean description, helping the agent understand why confirmation is mandatory.

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: 'Share a Google Drive file by creating a permission.' This specifies the verb (share) and resource (Google Drive file) and distinguishes it from siblings like drive_rename_file or drive_update_permissions. The safety gate note adds specificity without confusion.

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 implicitly answers when to use: whenever you want to share a file. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is clear. The confirm requirement also sets a prerequisite, which is useful guidance. However, it does not compare to drive_update_permissions, which could be an alternative for modifying existing permissions.

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