drive_share_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: it returns both accepted members and pending invitations, pending invites may target non-Proton addresses, revoke cancels pending invites, and authentication is required. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, the important pending-invitation nuance, when to call, and read-only caution. The most important information is front-loaded, and the longer explanatory content is not redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly describing the return object shape and field semantics. It also covers authentication, use-before-invite/revoke, and read-only behavior, so an agent has 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?

The schema already documents the single path parameter in full, including format ('must start with /'), examples, and that it must be an existing file or folder. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond saying 'Proton Drive path,' so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the current sharing state of a Proton Drive path.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from modifying operations by saying 'Do not call this to modify sharing — it is read-only,' and is clearly differentiated from invite/revoke siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always call this before drive_share_invite' and 'before drive_share_revoke,' and tells the agent to check the status field to distinguish accepted vs pending members. It also states when not to use it, making the routing unambiguous.

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