works_folder_enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns that enabling folder-level permissions breaks inheritance and results in a 'masters-only' state until grants are made. This is significant, useful context. It does not mention reversibility or the fate of existing permissions, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.

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, consisting of two sentences that deliver the core purpose, a critical warning, and a required parameter. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description covers the most critical aspects: the action, the warning about inheritance, and the confirm requirement. It does not describe return values or fully elaborate on the 'masters-only' state, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic behavior and risk.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add crucial semantics for the 'confirm' parameter by stating it must be true. The other parameters (sharedrive_id, folder_id, user) are not explained, but their names and roles are reasonably self-explanatory from context.

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 clearly states the action ('Enable folder-level permissions') with a specific verb and resource. It implies a distinction from siblings like works_folder_disable, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar permission-related tools such as works_perm_grant.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and a cautionary warning ('breaks inheritance'), which provide some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions that would make it inappropriate.

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