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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: size-based routing, where each class of file physically lands, and that heavy files are refused without a Drive connection. It omits key write semantics — whether a same-named file is overwritten, what happens to the memory link on overwrite or delete, and whether any auth or quota applies — which matters for a "put" operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the routing rule, with no filler. The phrasing "this line's Drive folder" and "a heavy file" is slightly informal but not wasteful.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description only covers the storage-routing story. An agent still lacks enough to fill in the required fields correctly or predict the result of a collision, so it is not complete relative to the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: name, description (both required), path, mime, and text are never mentioned. In particular, the distinction between supplying inline text versus a path, and why a required "description" field exists at all, is invisible to the agent.

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?

"Store a file" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately distinguishes two operating modes (Drive-backed vs memory-only) by size. It stops short of naming siblings like drive_read or memory_event, so the boundary with the rest of the drive_* family is left implicit.

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 1 MB threshold gives a clear conditional rule for what happens on either side, and the last line states the prerequisite (connect Drive) and the failure mode when it is absent. However, there is no guidance on when an agent should choose this over drive_sync, file_check, or memory_event, so selection among alternatives is left to inference.

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