drive_upload

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

The annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals return counts, failure behavior (fails if failed > 0), and destructive implications of 'replace' (permanently overwrites — confirm with user first). This goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

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 longer but well-structured: purpose first, then return behavior, conflict strategies, exclusions, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though the list of conflict strategies could arguably be condensed. It remains focused 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains return counts and failure consequences. It covers prerequisites, authentication, destination existence, and distinguishes from similar operations. It also covers common failure causes, making it remarkably complete for its complexity.

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 param descriptions already present. The description adds value by explaining the default conflictStrategy ('skip') and giving more context on each value (e.g., 'merge' is folders only). It also clarifies that remotePath is a destination folder path, which is implicit but not fully stated 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 'Upload a local file or folder to Proton Drive' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'Do not use to move files already on Drive (use drive_move) or to write text content directly (use drive_write_file)'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for uploading local files/folders. It also gives exclusions with alternatives and a prerequisite step: 'Ensure destination folder exists first with drive_list; create it with drive_mkdir if needed.' This is clear operational guidance.

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