drive_share_remove_all

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the full scope of destruction (all members plus pending invitations, Proton and non-Proton) and the requirement for authentication and confirmed=true. This adds meaningful context about the blast radius and safety mechanism.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by prerequisites and alternatives. No redundant or filler content.

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 destructive tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, and confirmation requirement. It is self-contained and aligns well with the available structured metadata.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description reinforces confirmed=true but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 the tool removes access for every member and every pending invitation on a shared Proton Drive path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly comparing to drive_share_revoke (single person) and drive_share_status (view access).

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use drive_share_status first to show who has access, and use drive_share_revoke instead when removing one specific person, citing it as cheaper and less error-prone. Also notes the confirmed=true requirement.

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