Delete Folder Sharing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the required scope, the delegate-permission behavior, the confirm gate, and possible side effects (notifications, provider charges), which is meaningful beyond the annotations, though the closing side-effect sentence reads as generic boilerplate.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the permission block is clearly delimited. It is somewhat long for a delete tool and the trailing 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges' line is generic, but no sentence is outright waste.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies auth requirements, the confirmation requirement, and side-effect caveats, and annotations already cover reversibility and world scope. It is essentially complete, with only the absence of sibling-tool routing keeping it from the top score.

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 100%, so folder_id, sharing_id, account and confirm are all self-documenting. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema text, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a sharing on a folder'), which is unambiguous against its closest siblings (create_folder_sharing, update_folder_sharing, list_folder_sharings, get_folder_sharing) and distinct from delete_folder itself. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete call conditions: the required token permission, the delegate-token alternative, and that confirm=true is mandatory for the mutation, with the schema noting it should be set only when the user asked for exactly this action. It does not, however, contrast against sibling sharing tools or describe when not to use it.

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