remove_drive_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the core behavior—'removes a permission' and 'revoking access'—and mentions the confirmation return value. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions/scopes, or potential failure conditions such as removing an owner.

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 concise, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It includes parameter explanations and the return type without excessive prose.

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 straightforward permission-removal tool, the description covers purpose, all three required parameters, a prerequisite source for permission_id, and the return type. It could be more complete by noting the destructive nature and requiring auth, but overall it gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: user_google_email as the user's Google email, file_id as the file/folder ID, and permission_id as the ID of the permission to remove. It also adds a valuable cross-reference indicating permission_id comes from get_drive_file_permissions.

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 starts with 'Removes a permission from a Google Drive file or folder, revoking access,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_permissions (retrieval) and update_drive_permission (modification).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove/revoke a permission) and notes that permission_id comes from get_drive_file_permissions, implying the prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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