Share a Proton Drive path

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool invites a user to collaborate, which implies granting access, but it does not explain what changes occur, whether the invitation is revocable, or what permissions are granted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to describing the action. It is appropriately terse for a tool whose structured fields carry the rest.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent operation, the description omits essential context: what happens when the invitation is sent (e.g., email notification, access granted), whether the operation requires specific permissions, and whether it can be undone. The annotations provide a safety signal, but the operational impact is left unexplained.

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%, so the schema already documents both remote_path and user_email fully. The description mentions 'remote path' and 'Proton user' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Invites') and clearly names the resources ('a Proton user', 'a remote path'), distinguishing it from sibling file operations like move, copy, or remove. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling because no other share tool exists, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as authentication, ownership of the remote path, or whether the invited user must already have a Proton account. The agent receives no usage context beyond the bare function.

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