Share a Proton Drive path

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification) and destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description 'invites' confirms a state change but does not elaborate on what happens on duplicate invites, error cases, or permission requirements. With annotations covering basic behavioral traits, the description adds minimal extra context.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, immediately conveying the action and context. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the verb 'Invites'. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two parameters with straightforward types (string, email) and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality. While it does not mention return behavior or error scenarios, the simplicity of the operation makes it largely complete. Slightly more context on success/error could improve it.

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?

Both parameters (user_email, remote_path) have descriptions in the schema that are clear and sufficient. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'Email of the user to invite' and 'Remote Proton Drive path to share'. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is 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 the action ('invites'), the target ('Proton user'), and the resource ('remote path'). It uniquely identifies the sharing operation among siblings, which include list, create, remove, and other non-sharing tools.

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 the usage context (sharing a path) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, path must exist), or when not to use it. Since it's the only sharing tool, the lack of alternatives partially mitigates this, but it still could be clearer.

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