Upload a local file to Google Drive, optionally setting its filename or target folder ID, so workflows can store generated or local assets in Drive.
Upload a local file to Google Drive
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the uploaded file (default: original filename) | |
| localPath | Yes | Local file path to upload | |
| driveFolderId | No | Target Drive folder ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, whether uploads overwrite existing files, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context such as return values, error conditions, or side effects. It is too minimal for the complexity of 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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema itself, which is acceptable when schema coverage is high.
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 states a specific verb (Upload) and resource (local file to Google Drive), clearly identifying the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like drive_download or drive_create_folder, but the purpose is still unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without any contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.