Manage Drive Access

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'managing' permissions adds no new behavioral context. Does not disclose side effects like notification sending, ownership transfer implications, or that changes are immediate.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Directly states the tool's purpose and supported actions without unnecessary detail.

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 high parameter count (14) and existence of output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview of the tool's capabilities. It could mention the required fields (user_google_email, file_id) but those are already in the schema. Overall adequate.

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 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline.

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?

Clearly states it's a consolidated tool for managing Drive permissions, listing specific actions (grant, batch-grant, update, revoke, transfer ownership). The verb 'manage' combined with resource 'access permissions' and the list of actions makes it distinct from sibling tools like 'set_drive_file_permissions' or 'get_drive_file_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?

Implies it is the single entry point for permission management, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs other tools (e.g., 'set_drive_file_permissions' for simple single permission changes). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions.

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