drive.revisions.delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the operation is permanent, notes irreversibility unless the API documents a trash/undo flow, mentions refusal under --readonly safety profiles, and describes the return value as the post-delete resource state or empty JSON.

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 key deletion behavior and restrictions are front-loaded effectively. However, the description includes generic wrapper text about request-body construction that is largely irrelevant for a DELETE operation, plus a terse sibling list, making it longer and less focused than it could be.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the behavioral context an agent needs: it explains the destructive and irreversible nature, the safety-profile refusal, the restrictions on deletable revisions, and the return value. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so no critical gap remains.

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 fileId, revisionId, and the wrapper parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating generic behavior about typed parameters winning over the params map and body_file handling, which is already covered by the schema.

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: 'Permanently deletes a file version.' It also clarifies the scope by stating that only binary-content revisions can be deleted and that Google Docs/Sheets and the last remaining version cannot, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like get, list, and update.

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 clear when-not conditions: non-binary files and the final remaining revision cannot be deleted. It names sibling tools over the same resource (get, list, update), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer those alternatives, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not/alternatives statement.

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