manage_drive_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: actions return task_id for move/delete, type field is required with specific error codes. This provides useful transparency, though it could mention if operations are synchronous or destructive.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, then breaks down actions in one sentence each. Every word adds value—no fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description describes return values for move/delete (task_id) but omits copy's return. It covers required fields and error conditions, satisfying most contextual needs for a 5-param tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond enum labels: explains why type is always required (Feishu API table), and clarifies parameter conditions (name required for copy, folder_token for move).

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 manages Drive files with three specific actions (copy, move, delete), each with a brief explanation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_drive_file or delete_calendar_event.

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 provides important requirements (type is always required) and error codes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_wiki_node or create_doc. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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