drive_permissions_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so an agent knows this mutates and is not idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, such as implications of type='anyone', duplicate-permission behavior, or required scopes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundant details. Every word earns its place and the core action is immediately visible.

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 create-permission tool with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, it omits significant context such as the public-sharing implication of type='anyone' and does not clarify what happens on success or when a permission already exists, leaving the agent to infer these from schemas alone.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the relationship between 'file' and 'permission', meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Share') and resource ('file') plus the object of the action ('permission'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like drive_permissions_transferOwnership, but 'creating a permission' sufficiently separates this from list/update/delete operations.

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 phrase 'Share a file by creating a permission' implies the primary use case: granting access to a file via a new permission. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer related siblings such as drive_permissions_update or drive_permissions_transferOwnership.

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