drive_permissions_delete

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

Annotations already cover destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the access-removal effect and a non-obvious API constraint: concurrent permissions operations on the same file are not supported and only the last update applies. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the core action, and the second adds an essential concurrency caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: two required fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations already carrying destructive/idempotent/open-world semantics. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, and the concurrency caveat is the only non-obvious context needed.

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 fully documents fileId and permissionId. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and does not need to, given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Revoke' plus the object 'a permission from a file' states exactly what the tool does, and the consequence 'removing that user's/group's/domain's access' makes the effect unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from drive_permissions_create, drive_permissions_update, and drive_permissions_list.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_permissions_update or drive_permissions_create. The concurrency caveat is behavioral, not usage direction; the only usage hint ('get it from drive_permissions_list') lives in the schema, not the description.

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