source_add_drive_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses server-side fetching with the profile's session, that it works on the http connector without an upload_required step, asynchronous processing, and the wait=true blocking option with source_wait/source_list fallbacks. It stops short of stating auth requirements, size limits, or failure semantics beyond the pointer error, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then routing, then parameter/async details across three tight paragraphs. Every sentence carries signal, though the routing paragraph is dense enough that it could be trimmed slightly.

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 needn't be described. Given that, the description covers the action, the routing alternatives, the accepted identifier formats, and the async/wait lifecycle — 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 3 of 4 params: notebook (name or ID), document_id (file id or share URL, with concrete /d/<id>, /file/d/<id>, ?id= patterns), and wait (block until READY). The 'title' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one gap.

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+resource with mechanism: 'Add a Google Drive file by downloading it server-side and uploading it'. It also enumerates supported formats and clearly distinguishes itself from source_add(source_type='drive') and source_add(source_type='file'), which is exactly the sibling disambiguation an agent needs.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use source_add(source_type='drive') for Google-native Docs/Slides/Sheets (or a Drive PDF by reference), and source_add(source_type='file') when the bytes are held locally. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out.

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