Save file(s) to OneDrive

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behaviors: folder creation if new, the return of webViewLink, and the OneDrive connector requirement. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful side-effecting context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences cover the core purpose, parameter usage, return value, and prerequisite without redundancy. The structure is logical, though slightly longer than strictly necessary. Every sentence contributes, earning a high score.

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 key usage flows, prerequisites, and the return value despite lacking an output schema. It handles batch saves via urls[] and the local-file path via upload_file. Minor gaps like behavior on duplicate filenames keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that url can be a Hermoso render URL or the result of upload_file for local/external files, and clarifies that folder is created if new. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: "Save a Hermoso render — or ANY file — into the user's connected Microsoft OneDrive." It distinguishes this tool from siblings like save_to_drive (Google Drive) and upload_file by explicitly naming the destination and the prerequisite flow for local/external files.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use this tool: for saving render URLs or any file to OneDrive, and explicitly instructs to call upload_file first for local/external files. It also states a prerequisite (OneDrive connected), though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives such as save_to_drive for Google Drive.

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