drive_unshare

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the confirm gate, the atomic failure mode ('not_found and nothing is changed'), and the owner-protection rule. It does not say whether the removed person is notified, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions the caller needs, which leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive, outward-facing operation.

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?

Three short blocks with the action front-loaded, followed by preconditions and then the confirm requirement. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 six-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important operational facts (confirm, atomicity, owner protection). It omits caller-permission requirements and post-removal behavior, but the item-identification parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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, but the description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema: the emails must currently have access, and the owner's address is rejected. The other five locating/confirmation parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Remove people's access to a file or folder') and anchors it to the exact UI path (Manage access > person > Remove). This clearly separates it from drive_share, drive_set_role, and drive_share_link, which grant or modify access rather than revoke it.

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?

Gives usable preconditions: every address must already have access, the owner cannot be removed, and confirm=true is mandatory. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (drive_set_role to downgrade instead of removing, drive_sharing to verify current access) that an agent might want before invoking.

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