drive_star

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: no statement about reversibility (drive_unstar exists but is never referenced), idempotency when the item is already starred, error behavior on ambiguous names, or required permissions. For a mutation of Drive state 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification given how little the sentence has to carry for a state-changing tool.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover the discovery step that produces the index value and the reversible counterpart drive_unstar. Neither is present, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently in a multi-step flow.

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%, with each parameter (name, path, index, occurrence) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond that, and notably does not explain how an item is identified when zero parameters are required or how name/path/index/occurrence interact.

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?

"Add a file or folder to Starred" names a specific verb (add to Starred) and resource (file/folder), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like drive_unstar, drive_move, or drive_share. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse tool or the scoping rules, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites. Because all four parameters are optional and one of them (index) only makes sense after a prior drive.list / drive.search, the agent is left to infer the discovery workflow entirely on its own.

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