set_drive_owners

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

The description discloses that owners can be specified by UUID, email, or name, that they are ensured as members by default, and that passing an empty array clears owners. This adds useful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the essential behavior, acceptable inputs, default behavior, and clearing of owners. With output schema and annotations present, it is nearly complete, though it could note permission requirements or consequences of clearing owners.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage. The description's details about owner formats and default ensureMembers behavior largely duplicate the schema descriptions, adding no new information. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Replace owners on an existing Drive,' specifying the verb (replace), resource (Drive), and scope (owners). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_space_owners by naming the resource explicitly.

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?

While the description explains what the tool does, it does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives like add_drive_members. The purpose is implied but not contrasted with similar operations.

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