update_drive

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it labels updates as 'safe metadata' (implying non-destructive), clarifies that files/folders are unaffected, and implies a validation constraint (at least one field). Annotations already state destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description aligns and enhances 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a list of fields and a constraint. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 a 6-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers scope, behavioral traits, and a key constraint. It does not explain return values, but that is covered by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or permission requirements.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description lists the updatable fields but adds minimal new semantic value. The constraint 'Provide at least one update field' is useful but not directly parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 updates safe metadata on an existing Drive, listing specific fields (name, description, private, archived, autoJoin). It distinguishes the scope from files/folders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_space or create_drive, though the focus on Drive metadata is implied.

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 a clear constraint: 'Provide at least one update field.' It also clarifies that the tool changes the Drive space, not files/folders. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_drive, delete_drive, update_space) or mention prerequisites like write permissions.

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