drive.drives.delete

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the post-delete resource state as JSON. It also explains how request bodies are built from parameters or a file, adding useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover rate limits or permissions beyond the organizer requirement.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose and constraints. Some parts, such as the generic HTTP DELETE explanation and the sibling list, are slightly verbose but still relevant. Overall, the structure is clear and each sentence contributes to understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 7 parameters and no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, prerequisites, irreversibility, safety profile behavior, return value, and request body construction. It omits some parameter-specific behavior (e.g., how `allowItemDeletion` interacts with content deletion), but the schema handles that. The description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds some value by explaining the interplay between typed parameters and the `params` map, and the use of `body_file`, but it does not elaborate on the semantics of specific parameters like `allowItemDeletion` or `useDomainAdminAccess` beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action (permanently deletes) and resource (shared drive), along with the prerequisite that the user must be an organizer and the drive cannot contain untrashed items. It explicitly lists sibling tools over the same resource, allowing easy differentiation.

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 usage constraints (organizer role, no untrashed items), which implies when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like hide or update, nor does it state exclusions beyond the prerequisites.

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