drive_upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful auth context with 'Shared Drive + SA; no browser', but it omits important side-effect details such as whether existing files are overwritten, how name collisions are handled, and what permissions or prerequisites are needed for a write operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds meaningful deployment context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the missing semantics of the optional 'name' parameter and the lack of behavioral details around overwriting or collisions make it incomplete for fully reliable invocation.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. While 'local_path' is fairly self-explanatory, the optional 'name' parameter's meaning and its default behavior are unclear, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Upload a file to the configured Drive folder'. It also adds useful scoping context in parentheses: 'Shared Drive + SA; no browser'. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from siblings like drive_folder_info or the Kaggle-related tools.

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 the tool is for uploading a local file to the configured Drive folder, which gives reasonable context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing from the action verb alone.

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