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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the critical fact that the copy is shared with nobody until ShareConnectedFile is called – a state-changing consequence the annotations do not convey. It does not cover permission failures, quota limits, or what happens if the target name already exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability and example first, then the state/policy constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover open-world/non-destructive behavior, so return-value detail is unnecessary. However, for a 6-parameter tool with near-zero schema documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about ID sourcing and the relationship between connectionId, companyId, and folderId, which is a real gap before invocation.

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 description coverage is only 17% (essentially just the connectionId wrapper), so the description needs to compensate and does not. It implies a new name and a source/target folder but never explains fileId, folderId, companyId, or agentName, nor how to obtain those identifiers.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Copies one file from an approved Google Drive folder into an approved folder under a new name') plus a concrete example of the template-to-per-investor pattern. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling connection_share_connected_file, which it explicitly names as a separate step.

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?

States a hard precondition – only copy files the member approved in this conversation, one per named person – and points to ShareConnectedFile for the sharing step. It lacks a negative case (e.g. what to do for bulk or unapproved copies), but the operating context is clear.

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