update_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating actions and partial-update behavior, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, potential side effects, or the response format. The schema separately describes trashed and parentFolderId semantics, which helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the action list and adding a single instruction on partial updates. No redundant or vague language.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input operations but omits details about return values, error conditions, and authorization prerequisites. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent needing to handle edge cases.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping each action to a parameter (rename→name, move→parentFolderId, star/unstar→starred, trash/restore→trashed). It emphasizes that only changed fields need to be sent, giving clear parameter-level guidance beyond the schema's required field list.

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 explicitly lists all update operations (rename, move, star/unstar, trash/restore) with a clear resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_folder, get_file, and delete_file. The phrase 'Pass only the fields you want to change' clarifies partial-update semantics.

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 states 'in one call' and 'Pass only the fields you want to change', clearly indicating when this tool is appropriate (updating multiple properties of an existing file). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity (file vs folder) and sibling context imply usage boundaries.

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