drive_permissions_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'share a file' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., ownership), what happens to existing permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what permissions are needed to execute this operation, what the return value looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies access control on files, more context about behavioral implications would be expected.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and required fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that emailAddress is only needed for certain types) or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('share a file') and resource ('by creating a permission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other drive tools like drive_files_get or drive_files_update by focusing specifically on permission management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling permission tools (none are listed in the provided siblings).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing file ownership or specific permissions), nor does it suggest when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., using drive_files_update for different modifications). There's no context about when this operation is needed versus when it should be avoided.

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