Delete Folder Sharing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact API token permission required, the delegated-token scope, and the mandatory confirm=true for the mutation. The trailing 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges' warning is vague but adds some awareness of side effects.

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 one short sentence, which is good. However, the multi-line permission block is lengthy boilerplate for a simple delete operation, and the final sentence mixes side-effect warnings awkwardly. Adequate but not tight.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: authorization requirements and the confirm=true gate. It could say more about what happens to existing viewers when sharing is removed, but it is close to 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 100%, so all four parameters including account, confirm, folder_id, and sharing_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a sharing on a folder.' That is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the broad delete_folder sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with update_folder_sharing or the share-link deletion siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named (e.g. update_folder_sharing to modify rather than remove access). The permission and confirm prerequisites are stated, but routing guidance is absent.

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