drive_update_shared_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states what fields can be updated. It does not disclose behavioral details like whether the update is immediate, reversible, or what permissions are required, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the action and key fields. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but underwhelming.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is minimal and does not clarify return values, side effects, or integration with other tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 is 100% with meaningful descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema, which already explains name, driveId, and restrictions. 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?

Description clearly states the action is updating metadata of a shared drive and lists specific updatable fields like name and restrictions. The verb 'Update' and resource 'shared drive' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that create, read, list, or delete shared drives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_update_file or drive_update_permission. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or context in which updating a shared drive is appropriate.

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