drive.teamdrives.delete

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses irreversibility (absent a documented trash/undo flow), that the call is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the post-delete resource state as JSON. However, it omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or error behavior for a destructive operation.

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 deprecation warning and replacement are correctly front-loaded, and the whole definition is a single compressed paragraph with no filler. The em-dash-chained clauses make it denser than necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers migration path, irreversibility, safety-profile refusal, return shape, and request-body construction — everything an agent needs to call or avoid it 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 all five parameters including teamDriveId and dry_run are already documented. The description restates the typed-flags-win-over-`params` precedence and the `body_file` whole-body path, which mostly duplicates existing schema text rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific action (HTTP DELETE, removes the resource) and immediately names the replacement tool `drives.delete`, so an agent can distinguish this deprecated Team Drive deletion from its siblings. The trailing sibling list (create, get, list, update) further pins down the resource scope.

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?

Explicitly says to use `drives.delete` instead, which is the strongest possible routing guidance for a deprecated endpoint. It also enumerates the alternative operations over the same resource, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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