works_share_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (appears in 'shared with me'), scope (My Drive only), and a requirement (confirm=true). But it omits side effects, return value, and how parameters like perm_type and notify affect behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: the effect, the scope limitation, and the confirm prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant content.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides only the core purpose and two constraints. It fails to explain parameter relationships, when to prefer this over similar siblings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only hints at confirm=true and that a My Drive folder is shared, leaving most parameters (file_id, owner_email, to_email, perm_type, notify) semantically unexplained. This is inadequate for a 6-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Share' with the resource 'My Drive folder' and clearly states the outcome (appears in the recipient's 'shared with me'). It also differentiates from siblings by scoping to My Drive only and explicitly excluding shared drives.

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 gives clear context for when to use (sharing My Drive folders) and an exclusion (not shared drives), plus a prerequisite (confirm=true). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like works_perm_grant, so it lacks the full when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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