Share a doc (person or link)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sharing may optionally send notifications, that omitting email modifies link sharing, and that role 'none' disables link sharing. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a mutating operation that overwrites existing permissions, but the pointer to unshare_doc for revocation provides useful context about reversibility.

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 tightly written in three sentences: a clear purpose statement, two conditional modes, and a cross-reference to an alternative tool. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases and an alternative. It doesn't mention potential failure modes or return values, but those are not critical for a sharing action. The overall behavior is well-scoped and understandable.

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 coverage is high (80%), but the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how the presence/absence of email toggles between person and link sharing, and by clarifying the special behavior of role 'none'. This enriches parameter understanding without repeating the schema descriptions verbatim.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Grant access to a Google Doc.' It then clearly distinguishes two operational modes (sharing with a person via email vs. setting anyone-with-link access) and explicitly references the sibling unshare_doc for the alternative action of revoking access, making it distinct from related tools.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it explains the two modes (with/without email) and explicitly tells the user to use unshare_doc for revoking a specific person's access. This is a direct alternative, satisfying the criterion for explicit when/alternatives.

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