Import a Drive / OneDrive folder into the Library

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

Extensive disclosure beyond annotations: explains the user's connected account is used for download, the durable Hermoso URL, the drive.file scope limitation (only sees files the user handed over), subfolders not walked, Google-native docs have no downloadable file, and both are reported by name. Also mentions limit and skipped behavior. This adds significant value beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 long but every sentence adds critical behavioral or usage detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers limitations and edge cases. There is no fluff; the length is justified by the complexity of the tool. It is well-structured and readable despite its length.

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?

The description covers all aspects an agent needs: how to obtain folderId, the root case, the Drive scope limitation, subfolder handling, Google-native docs, the limit and skipped behavior, and reporting by name. No output schema exists, but the description explains what will happen and what the agent can tell the user. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: for folderId it gives the exact source and root behavior; for limit it explains the default, max, and skipped reporting; for provider it clarifies the enum values. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, so a 4 is warranted.

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 imports a Google Drive or OneDrive folder into the Library, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_drive_files, save_to_drive, and upload_file by focusing on folder-level import with the provider parameter and folderId sourced from list tools.

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 instructions: give folderId from list_drive_files/list_onedrive_files with onlyFolders, omit for root. Also clarifies when not to use (empty folder on Drive is a scope issue, subfolders are not walked). Names the source tools and explains the limit/skipped behavior, so an agent knows exactly when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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