drive_upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool supports base64 content and that the upload can be used to obtain a file_token, hinting at the tool's output. However, it does not mention permissions, overwrite behavior, file size limits, or a full response schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Each sentence adds unique information.

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 has no output schema, so the description partially compensates by hinting at the file_token output. However, it lacks explicit details about the full response structure and potential error cases, making it slightly incomplete for a no-output-schema tool.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions; it only references base64 content and file_token, which are already implied in 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 action: '上传文件到飞书云空间' (upload file to Feishu cloud space), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by being the only upload-related drive tool among the listed siblings. It also adds a specific use case (getting file_token for document images).

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 specifies a clear use case: '可用于获取 file_token 以在文档中插入图片等' (can be used to obtain file_token for inserting images in documents), which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, though no direct alternative upload tool exists among siblings.

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