upload_folder

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

Given no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses recursive BFS traversal, error handling, and dry_run behavior (mutates only when false). It also mentions avoiding mutation of sync metadata. Lacks specifics on conflict handling (e.g., overwriting), but overall good transparency.

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?

Description is concise with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, then a BFS note, then parameter list. Could use bullet points for args, but it's well-front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema coverage, the description covers all parameters, behavior, and usage. Output schema is present so return values need not be described. Missing some error scenarios, but sufficient for typical 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does: explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and requirements. E.g., user_google_email's type and requirement, parent_folder_id optional with default, dry_run's default and effect. Missing constraints like path being a folder, but still valuable.

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's purpose: 'Recursively upload a local folder to Google Drive'. It specifies the verb (upload) and resource (local folder to Google Drive), and distinguishes from siblings like 'mirror_drive_folder' and 'link_local_file' by mentioning BFS traversal and error handling. No ambiguity.

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 when to use (for uploading folders recursively, especially deep trees) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'mirror_drive_folder', some guidance on differentiation would improve the score.

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