drive_share

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that sharing is immediately visible to the other person and advises checking the address first. This adds meaningful behavioral context not captured by annotations, though it does not mention permissions or reversibility.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is stated first, and the cautionary note earns its place by highlighting a real side effect. Wasteless and well-structured.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers core purpose and a key side effect. However, it omits role semantics, preconditions (e.g. need edit permission on the file), and whether sharing can be revoked or changed. Since no output schema exists, these gaps leave the agent with partial context.

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. It only maps 'someone' to email and 'file' to fileId, but provides no explanation of the role parameter, its enum values, or the default. The schema contains the enum/default, so some structure is available, but the description adds little semantic meaning beyond the property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Grant') and resource ('access to a file'), clearly indicating what the tool does. This distinguishes it from other drive tools in the sibling list such as drive_get, drive_export, and drive_trash, none of which perform sharing.

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 intended use is implied by the action ('Grant someone access to a file'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternative sharing tool appears among siblings, so differentiation is not needed, but the warning about visible sharing is not a usage guideline per se.

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