upload_text_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only explains the purpose and parameter roles; it does not disclose behaviors like whether it overwrites existing files, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The only extra behavioral detail is that an empty folder_id means root.

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 appropriately sized: one opening sentence stating purpose, followed by a concise list of parameter explanations. Every line adds necessary value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 is simple, but the description lacks behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, prerequisites like authentication, and what happens if folder_id is invalid. Output schema is present, so return values don't need explanation, but for a write operation with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations for name (with example), content, and folder_id, including the behavior of empty folder_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool uploads a new text file to Google Drive, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_text_file by explicitly saying 'nuevo' (new), which implies creation.

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 implies usage for creating new text files but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like update_text_file. The 'nuevo' hint provides some differentiation, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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