colab_drive_mount_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the prerequisite user action, the cancel escape hatch, and the recommended verification step. It does not cover auth requirements, failure modes, or what a pending-vs-completed state looks like, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the step identity and the critical ordering condition. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is nearly complete for a 2-param tool but omits any explanation of the required session parameter and lacks auth/failure context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains cancel=true semantics well. However, the required 'session' parameter is never described in the text, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 it is 'Step 2 of mounting Google Drive' and that it 'Completes the mount', giving a specific verb+resource. It implies the pairing with colab_drive_mount_start (step 1) and names colab_drive_status, so an agent can place it in the flow 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?

Explicit timing ('call it AFTER the user says they clicked Allow'), an explicit follow-up ('verify with colab_drive_status'), and an explicit abandonment path ('cancel=true abandons a pending mount'). When-to-call and what-to-do-next are both spelled out.

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