drive_share_invite

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotation (openWorldHint): it immediately sends an email notification and warns that duplicate invitations may silently overwrite roles. With no other annotations, this provides essential transparency for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by warnings and usage notes. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the tool's action, prerequisites (run drive_share_status first), side effects (email sent, potential overwrite), and role explanations. This is complete information for an agent to use 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% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters including enum values. The description reiterates the role meanings but does not add substantial new semantic information beyond what is in 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Invite a person to access a Proton Drive file or folder by email') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like drive_share_status and drive_share_revoke by referencing them explicitly.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not call without first running drive_share_status — duplicate invitations may silently overwrite the existing role.' It also instructs to confirm email and role with the user before calling, and mentions an alternative tool for removal.

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