Authenticate with Proton Drive

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a command rather than performing actual authentication, which is key behavioral information. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds context about the interactive credential requirement.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how to proceed. It mentions the return type (a command) and the next step (checking status), making it complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes the force parameter fully. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 that the tool attempts to authenticate with proton-drive CLI by returning a command for the user to run. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool proton_drive_auth_status by mentioning to check status after running the command.

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?

It explicitly instructs to check auth status with proton_drive_auth_status after running the command, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the force parameter's role in skipping authentication checks.

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