share_drive_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It says 'adding a permission' but does not disclose side effects like whether this overrides existing permissions, potential public exposure with type=anyone, auth requirements, or that send_notification is controlled by a parameter. The tool is mutating and 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 sentence that is immediately informative. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or filler.

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?

With 7 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to convey more context: what happens when sharing, how to handle role/type combinations, and whether a response is returned. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the schema provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'adding a permission,' which doesn't explain parameter combinations like role/type or email requirements. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles documentation.

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 the tool's function: 'Share a Google Drive file by adding a permission.' This uses a specific verb ('share') and resource ('Google Drive file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_drive_file or upload_drive_file, which perform different actions.

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 you want to share a file, and the sibling list suggests alternatives for other file operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating permissions, use update_drive_file) or provide alternative tool names. It gives clear context though.

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