Source Add Drive File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: server-side fetch using the profile's session, works on the remote (http) connector with no upload_required step, and asynchronous processing with wait=true / source_wait / source_list(status="error") for confirmation. Rich behavioral disclosure well beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and supported types, then routing, then parameter details, then async behavior. Dense but every sentence earns its place; only slight verbosity in the parenthetical URL examples keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers routing, error cases, parameter formats, and the asynchronous completion path — everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly against a rich sibling set.

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 and does: notebook accepts a name or ID, document_id accepts a Drive file id or share URL with explicit URL patterns (/d/<id>, /file/d/<id>/…, ?id=<id>), and wait=true blocks until READY. Only 'title' is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Google Drive file by downloading it server-side and uploading it'), including the supported file types. It distinguishes itself from siblings source_add, source_add_play_book, and await_upload by naming exactly what it does that they don't.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: Google-native Doc/Slides/Sheet aren't downloadable and return a pointer error → use source_add(source_type='drive', mime_type=…); use source_add(source_type='file') when bytes are held locally. Names when-not conditions and concrete alternatives.

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