upload_drive_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the API origin, return values (file_token+url), and optional Wiki integration. However, it omits rate limits, authentication requirements, and file size constraints.

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?

Two concise sentences cover main upload and optional Wiki behavior. Includes technical details (API version, parent_type) that slightly reduce conciseness but remain efficient.

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?

Describes return values and optional Wiki behavior, compensating for missing output schema. Lacks error handling and file limits but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward upload 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 valuable context: 'folder_token' can be the personal space root token, and 'wiki_space_id' enables Wiki attachment. It also notes 'UAT-first with app fallback' for authentication order.

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 file to a Feishu Drive folder, including the API endpoint and optional Wiki attachment. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_file' and 'upload_image' by specifying the target and additional functionality.

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 Drive folder uploads with optional Wiki attachment but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'upload_file' or 'upload_bitable_attachment', nor provide when-not scenarios.

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