gdrive_share

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation risk via 'dry_run=True to preview the change without committing,' clarifies valid roles, and mentions that send_notification controls whether Google emails the collaborator. It could go further by describing permission overwrite behavior or revocation, but it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 well structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by discovery, usage boundaries, and a tidy Args list. Every line earns its place; the only minor repetition is the role list appearing twice, but this aids clarity rather than harming it.

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 6-parameter sharing tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains prerequisites, valid inputs, dry-run behavior, and what each parameter does. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to open the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the 6 parameters gets a plain-language meaning. It clarifies that file_id is 'preferred when known,' that role is constrained to reader/commenter/writer, and that dry_run previews without committing. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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: 'Share a Google Drive file/folder with a user email.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like gdrive_copy, gdrive_move, gdrive_rename, and gdrive_trash because it is about granting access permissions rather than manipulating the file itself.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for: granting reader/commenter/writer access to a collaborator. Not for: transferring ownership.' It also provides a discovery workflow: run gdrive_search or gdrive_list_folder first to get file_id/file_name. This tells an agent both when to use the tool and what it should not be used for.

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