drive_invitation_reject

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable context: the rejection is permanent, the sender is not notified, and authentication is required. This gives the agent a full understanding of the action's consequences.

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 sentences with zero redundancy: the first states the action, the second provides the prerequisite, and the third adds crucial side effects. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and consequences. The destructiveHint annotation handles the safety profile, making the description complete for its complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the uid parameter, including its provenance and examples. The description reinforces the 'do not guess' rule but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so 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 the specific verb 'Reject' with the resource 'pending Proton Drive sharing invitation,' making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_invitation_accept 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?

Explicitly instructs the user to obtain the uid from drive_list_invitations first and warns against guessing the uid. This provides clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance, with explicit exclusions for guessing.

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