Share a Drive file

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description adds essential behavioral warnings: 'GIVES AWAY ACCESS to real data and cannot be undone from here', 'anyone ... readable by ANYONE WITH THE LINK', and the notification email default. This significantly exceeds what the schema and annotations alone convey.

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?

Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, with the most critical warning front-loaded ('cannot be undone from here'). Despite covering several parameter nuances, the description remains tight and scannable.

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 eight parameters and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk decision points (permission type, irrevocability, notify behavior). Remaining parameters like account, file_id, role, and message are adequately documented in the schema, so little is missing for correct invocation.

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 valuable parameter-level context: it explains the 'type' conditional requirements, the public-link implication of 'anyone', and the notify default. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Grant someone access to a file') and is distinct from sibling tools like drive_search, drive_read, or drive_upload. The resource and verb are specific, and the title reinforces the action without being a mere tautology.

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 gives concrete usage guidance for permission types, including when to use 'anyone' ('only use it when the user asked for a public link in so many words') and conditional requirements for user/group versus domain. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sharing action is clear enough that no alternative appears likely.

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