Refresh folder index

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: it requires an environment flag, processes work in bounded slices, saves progress, returns an etaCalls estimate, and changes nothing on Drive. These details materially help an agent understand operational constraints and side effects.

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 dense but front-loaded with the prerequisite and core behavior, then explains slicing, completion, and the optional changes output. Every sentence conveys operational information without filler. It is appropriately sized for a non-trivial background-refresh tool.

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 lack of an output schema, the description still explains the important return/progress signals: complete:true, etaCalls, and optional change counts with sample paths. It also covers the environment prerequisite, slicing behavior, and read-only nature. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and repeat the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, but the description adds useful semantics: maxAgeHours selects folders last listed longer ago or never, processing is oldest first, timeBudgetMs bounds a slice, and changes:true adds counts plus up to 50 sample paths. This goes beyond simple repetition of the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: refreshing a saved folder index for a huge drive in slices. It distinguishes this from generic listing/searching by emphasizing the persisted index, max-age filtering, and repeatable slice-based progress. An agent can understand the tool's role 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?

The description clearly says to repeat until complete:true, that younger folders are skipped, and that PROTON_DRIVE_INDEX=1 is required. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions beyond the environment prerequisite and age filter. The guidance is still actionable for correct invocation.

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