gdrive_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavior: the folder's tools stop reading it and the change is reversible ('until the user turns it back on'). It does not state whether credentials are dropped, whether other folders are affected, or whether re-enabling requires re-auth.

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 intent is front-loaded and the sentence is short, but the text is visibly truncated mid-word ('turns it back on i...'), leaving the definition structurally incomplete rather than genuinely concise.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and its reversibility. The truncated ending, and the absence of any mention of prerequisites or the complementary re-enable tool, leave it short of complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target folder is implicit/selected elsewhere rather than passed as an argument.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Turns one Google Drive folder off') and names the effect clearly, distinguishing it from a general account disconnect by scoping it to a single folder. However, the text is truncated mid-sentence, so the full scope of what 'off' means is left incomplete.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The sibling gdrive_set_scope likely handles the inverse (turning a folder back on), but the description never mentions it, so the agent must infer the pairing itself.

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