works_folder_disable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly warns that the action 'drops folder grants, restores inheritance' and requires `confirm=true`, revealing a destructive and potentially irreversible effect. This goes well beyond what the schema alone indicates (confirm parameter exists, but its mandatory nature is not obvious) and is genuinely helpful.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then delivers a warning, and finally states the confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (no annotations, no output schema, 4 parameters), the description covers the core details: purpose, destructive warning, and confirmation requirement. It does not explain the `user` parameter's role or potential reversibility, but for a focused permission-disabling action, the provided context is mostly sufficient. Slight room for improvement in addressing parameter semantics.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains only `confirm` (must be true) but leaves `sharedrive_id`, `folder_id`, and `user` without added meaning beyond their names. For instance, `user` is optional and could be interpreted as a filter, but no clarification is provided. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Disable folder-level permissions.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool `works_folder_enable` by stating the opposite action. The additional detail on dropping grants and restoring inheritance further clarifies the exact scope.

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 description implies when to use the tool (to disable folder-level permissions) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. For instance, it does not contrast with `works_perm_revoke` for revoking specific user grants. The requirement to set `confirm=true` is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline, so guidance is limited to implied context.

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