update_drive_file

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

Discloses side effects (rename, move, trash, star) and notes that trashing is reversible. It also warns that changing mime_type rarely works without content. With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so adequately.

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, with each sentence adding distinct information: purpose, side effects, exclusions, reversibility, and authentication. No redundancy or 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?

Covers the main aspects of the tool: what it updates, side effects, what it does not do, reversibility, and auth scope. An output schema exists, so return values are handled externally. A minor gap is lack of explanation for add_parents/remove_parents move behavior, but the schema covers that detail.

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 description does not need to explain individual parameters. It adds value by grouping parameters into categories (metadata, parents, flags) and adding clarifying notes like the reversibility of trashed, but this does not significantly exceed the schema's information.

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 updates metadata, folder parents, and flags. It distinguishes itself from content creation tools by explicitly stating it does NOT upload content, and mentions alternatives like create_drive_file.

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 guidance on when not to use (for content uploads) and mentions the required OAuth scope. It could be more explicit about when to prefer this over other update tools, but the context is clear given the sibling list.

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