Authenticate with Proton Drive

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true but explain little about the interactive-credential constraint; the description adds the crucial fact that the tool cannot complete authentication itself and instead returns a command the user must run. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and would not get from annotations alone.

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 compact sentences with the core hand-off behavior front-loaded. No filler and every clause carries meaning.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece: the tool returns a command rather than authenticating. It could go slightly further on prerequisites or how the returned command relates to auth_status, but it is adequate for a simple login-helper.

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%, and the single 'force' parameter is fully documented there, including its effect on the already-authenticated check. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (authenticate) and resource (proton-drive CLI), and distinguishes itself from the sibling proton_drive_auth_status by describing an attempt to log in rather than check status. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage context by noting the CLI requires interactive credentials, so the tool is a pre-step that hands off a command. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus proton_drive_auth_status, nor whether it must be called before other drive operations.

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