drive_set_role

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

With no annotations at all, the description does carry useful weight by flagging that the action is outward-facing/destructive and gated behind confirm=true. However, it says nothing about required caller privileges (owner vs editor), whether the previous role is recoverable, or any failure modes, which is a notable gap for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the confirm gate front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the confirmation gate, but leaves permission requirements, reversibility, and result behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter, including the role enum and the confirm gate, is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond structured data.

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 ('change the role') and resource ('a person who already has access to a file or folder'), which cleanly separates it from drive_share (granting access) and drive_unshare (revoking). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

'who already has access' is a real precondition that tells the agent this is not the tool for granting new access, and the confirm=true requirement is stated up front. No explicit alternative tool is named for the grant-access case, so it falls short of a 5.

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