drive_share_remove_url

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Requires authentication', 'The link stops working immediately', and 'direct member access...is not affected.' These details go beyond the annotation and help the agent predict side effects without contradicting the destructive hint.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior/requirements, and usage alternative. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler or repetition. Ideal conciseness for a tool with one parameter.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when not to use it, authentication requirement, immediate effect, and impact on other sharing types. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 for the single 'path' parameter is 100%, and the schema description is already clear ('Absolute remote Drive path whose public link should be removed (must start with '/')'). The plain-language description adds no further parameter details, but none are needed given the complete schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the public share link from a Proton Drive file or folder.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it is not for and naming the alternative (drive_share_revoke). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use to remove a specific person's access — use drive_share_revoke instead.' It also clarifies that direct member access (from drive_share_invite) is unaffected, helping the agent understand the tool's scope versus related sharing tools.

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