share_drive_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses folder inheritance, permission auto-revocation via expiration_time, notification behavior, and the return value. It explains how share_type affects share_with and allow_file_discovery, going well beyond a basic summary.

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: a one-sentence summary, a key behavioral note, then a clear Args list. Every parameter is documented without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is complete. It covers all parameters, the return value, folder inheritance, expiration, and notification behavior. It even provides an example for expiration_time format, leaving no major gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains each parameter in detail, including defaults, optionality, and specifics like RFC 3339 format for expiration_time. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Shares a Google Drive file or folder with a user, group, domain, or anyone with the link,' which is specific and covers the main action. It also notes folder inheritance, making it distinct from related tools like batch_share_drive_file or update_drive_permission.

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 by detailing supported recipient types and parameter options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the thorough explanation of behaviors (like folder inheritance) gives strong implied guidance.

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