colab_drive_mount_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals that the link is suppressed by default because it contains the account e-mail, that the user must click Allow manually, and that mounting grants VM code access to the user's WHOLE Drive. These are non-obvious side effects and auth requirements an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the step and core action, and every sentence adds substance (link behavior, user action, drive-wide warning, next step). It is dense and slightly packed, but no sentence is filler.

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 re-explained. For a two-step, security-sensitive mount flow the description covers preconditions, the user's required action, side effects, safety constraints, and the next call — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 show_link's effect ('the link itself is NOT returned ... unless ... show_link=true'), giving meaningful semantics for the non-obvious parameter, while 'session' is self-evident from the surrounding tool family.

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+resource+stage: 'Step 1 of mounting Google Drive on a session: opens Google's approval page.' It explicitly frames itself against the sibling colab_drive_mount_finish ('Then call ... finish'), so an agent can distinguish the two-step flow without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('mount only when asked'), safety exclusions ('never ask for or handle passwords or codes'), post-use guidance ('stop the session afterwards'), and names the required follow-up sibling tool. Nothing about selection or sequencing is left to inference.

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