Save file(s) to Google Drive

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

Annotations already signal write (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds crucial context beyond that: the drive.file scope limitation (only reaches files created by the tool or user-picked), the connector requirement, and the return of webViewLink. This significantly helps an agent anticipate behavior and constraints.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides value: purpose, parameter usage, prerequisites, return type, and a critical scope note. It is logically ordered, starts with the core purpose, and uses a NOTE to highlight the most important constraint. No fluff.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and the need to handle multiple file sources, the description covers all necessary details: different file input paths, connector prerequisite, scope limitation, return format, and folder behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't detail error cases or pagination (not required).

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 descriptions cover the parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning: it clarifies the single vs. multiple URL relationship (url vs urls), the required upload_file workflow for non-Hermoso files, and that folder is created if new. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 exactly what it does: 'Save a Hermoso render — or ANY file — into the user’s connected Google Drive.' It names the primary resource and the alternative file types, and the verb 'save' clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_drive_files, get_drive_file, update_drive_file, and save_to_onedrive. The scope is unambiguous.

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: use url/urls for render URLs, or call upload_file first for local files and pass the returned URL. Also notes the connector requirement and that one connection covers Drive, Sheets, Docs. Does not explicitly mention exclusions vs other Drive operations, but the intent is clear from the 'save' verb and the workflow.

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