drive_invitation_accept

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating authentication requirements, the outcome (folder becomes accessible), and the caution to always fetch the uid from drive_list_invitations. This goes beyond the annotation and gives useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence serves a clear function: stating the action, mentioning authentication, giving instructions, and warning against guessing. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers prerequisites, authentication, outcome, and a caution. It doesn't explain error cases or edge conditions, but given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already describes the uid parameter as 'Invitation UID from drive_list_invitations output' with examples, providing 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by saying not to guess the uid, but it doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Accept a pending Proton Drive sharing invitation.' It uses a specific verb ('accept') and resource ('sharing invitation'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_invitation_reject and drive_list_invitations.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by instructing to get the invitation uid from drive_list_invitations first. It also warns against guessing the uid, reinforcing the prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like reject, but the context is clear enough.

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