Authenticate with Proton Drive

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

The description genuinely adds value beyond the schema by disclosing the interactive-credential limitation and that the effect is an instructions payload rather than a completed login. It does not, however, explain the annotations' readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true / non-idempotent profile, which is in tension with a tool whose stated output is merely a string to run.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (you get back a command, not a session) is stated up front. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unusual contract: the caller will receive a shell command. It stops short of explaining what happens to any existing session or the error shape when authentication fails.

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 100% for the single 'force' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no interpretation of 'force' (e.g., when re-running is safe or how it interacts with an existing session), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('authenticate with the proton-drive CLI') and adds a distinguishing behavioral fact — that it does not complete auth but emits a command. An agent can tell this apart from proton_bridge_login by resource, though the description never contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'attempts to authenticate' and the returned-login-instructions behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g., proton_drive_auth_status, proton_bridge_login), and no note that callers should stop and hand the command to the user rather than retry.

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