drive_create_text_doc

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the narrow drive.file scope, which is helpful for understanding authorization requirements, but fails to describe other important behaviors such as whether the document overwrites existing files, error handling, or the nature of the output (e.g., file ID).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word adds value, and the core purpose is immediately clear without any superfluous 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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the output (e.g., whether it returns a file ID) or provide enough detail for an agent to fully understand the behavior, such as the result of omitting optional parameters.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the format of the parent folder ID or the effect of omitting the account parameter.

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 explicitly states that it creates a native Google Doc from plain text, clearly identifying the verb (Create), resource (native Google Doc), and source (plain text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_upload_file or drive_create_folder.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The mention of a narrow scope (drive.file) hints at authorization context but does not serve as usage guidance.

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