Upload local workspace files such as Markdown, PDF, text, Office documents, audio, and images to a Gemini Notebook for centralized access and analysis.
Upload local workspace files (.md, .pdf, .txt, .docx, .pptx, .xlsx, audio, images) to a Gemini Notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | ||
| engine | No | auto | |
| file_paths | Yes | ||
| notebook_id | No | ||
| workspace_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether uploads are synchronous or queued (the wait parameter implies async behavior), authentication requirements, or what happens when notebook_id is omitted. Only the accepted file types add useful behavioral detail.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and an efficient parenthetical file-type list. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing 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, so return values need not be described. However, for a five-parameter mutating upload tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description omits critical operational details (async/wait semantics, engine selection, notebook targeting, login prerequisites).
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 five parameters. The description only loosely hints at file_paths via the file-type list and says nothing about wait, engine, notebook_id, workspace_dir, or the path-resolution interaction between file_paths and workspace_dir.
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?
States a specific verb (upload) and resource (local workspace files) with an explicit list of accepted file types, and identifies the destination (Gemini Notebook). It does not differentiate from the sibling notebook_add_source, leaving an agent unsure which to choose when adding content to a notebook.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus notebook_add_source, no prerequisites such as notebook_login, and no mention of when notebook_id or workspace_dir must be supplied. The agent must infer routing entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.