upload_drive_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description covers key behavioral aspects: the specific API endpoint, the return types, the conditional Wiki move via move_docs_to_wiki, and the authentication mode (UAT-first with app fallback). This goes beyond a simple 'upload' statement and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Three sentences pack all essential information: operation, API endpoint, return values, conditional behavior, and auth mode. No fluff or repetition, front-loaded with the core 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (file_token + url) and the optional Wiki flow. It also names the auxiliary tool for folder discovery. Minor gaps include ambiguity about failure handling or permission requirements, but overall it is complete enough for an upload operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the overall flow (upload to Drive, then optionally attach to Wiki), which ties wiki_space_id and wiki_parent_node_token to a concrete behavior. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 from disk to a Feishu Drive folder, specifying the API endpoint and parent_type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like upload_file by explicitly tying to Drive folders and optional Wiki attachment. The return value (file_token + url) is also stated.

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?

Provides clear context: how to find the destination folder token via list_files, and optional behavior when wiki_space_id is given. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for selection.

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