drive_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that General access choices are organisation-defined, that an unknown access fails by listing offered options, and that confirm=true is required. It still omits some relevant consequences, such as permission requirements or the exact effect of broadening link access.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful context: access constraints, the read-only alternative, and the confirm requirement. There is no 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral constraints and the key alternative. It is mostly complete, though it does not describe the return shape or permission prerequisites in detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the access parameter by explaining that choices are organisation-defined, that an unknown value fails with the offered options, and that omitting access keeps the current setting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting an item's link and optionally changing its General access. It also clarifies the scope with '(who can open the link)' and contrasts itself with drive.sharing, so an agent can distinguish its purpose from related tools.

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?

It gives a clear read-only alternative: 'Use drive.sharing to only read (no confirm needed).' It also states the confirm=true prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other sharing-related siblings such as drive_share or drive_set_role, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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