create_drive_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 discloses that the tool creates files (a write operation) and mentions support for shared drives, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by organized Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into the opening sentence. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description does well by covering parameters thoroughly and including a Returns section. However, with an output schema present, the return value explanation is somewhat redundant, and more behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error cases) would improve completeness for a write 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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains required vs. optional, default values (e.g., folder_id defaults to 'root'), constraints (e.g., folder_id must be within shared drive for shared drives), and usage (e.g., content vs. fileUrl options with supported protocols). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 verb 'creates' and resource 'new file in Google Drive', specifying support for shared drives. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_doc', 'create_sheet', etc., which create specific file types, whereas this tool creates general files with content or URLs.

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 usage by mentioning support for shared drives and content/fileUrl options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_doc' for documents or 'update_drive_file' for modifications. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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