drive_delete_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether special permissions are required, or what side effects occur. For a delete operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple operation, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not mention the output, whether the deletion is permanent, or any side effects. An output schema exists, but the description still needs to provide behavioral context to be complete.

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 does not explain the roles of file_id and permission_id. The schema only provides titles, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the tool name and context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a sharing permission from a file'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_share_file (which adds permissions) and drive_list_permissions (which lists permissions).

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 implies usage when a sharing permission needs to be revoked, but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as ownership or edit access.

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