drive_share

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose that the action is outward-facing and requires confirm=true, which is the single most important safety fact. It stops short of saying that permissions are actually granted to the listed emails, that notification e-mails go out by default, or whether re-sharing an already-shared item alters existing roles.

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 with the action first and the confirm gate second — nothing wasted. The parenthetical UI-path fragment is slightly cryptic but front-loads the important constraint efficiently.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the confirm gate but leaves the agent without a picture of the result (success/failure shape, whether recipients are notified, effect on existing permissions). Adequate, not 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 nine parameters are already documented structurally — baseline is 3. The description echoes 'role, notify' from that set but adds no semantics (e.g. what happens when message is supplied without notify, or how index/occurrence disambiguate targets).

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 ('Share a file or folder with people') plus the UI flow it automates, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like drive_share_link, drive_unshare or drive_set_role, which is the remaining gap.

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 confirm=true prerequisite is stated explicitly, which is real usage guidance. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus drive_share_link (link-based sharing) or drive_set_role, and no statement of what happens when the item is already shared — usage is implied rather than directed.

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