Rename / move / trash a Drive file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds operational details: trash is reversible (untrash with trash:false), moving can remove a file from an old folder via removeFromFolderId, and permanent deletion is excluded. This goes beyond the binary annotation flags and clarifies side effects.

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 main description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists all operations with their parameters. A second sentence handles the cross-reference to delete_drive_file. No filler or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the required input (fileId), all operation types, the source of values, and the key alternative for permanent deletion. It does not mention the success/return format, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of operations. It also doesn't explicitly state that multiple operations can be combined, which is implied by the parameter list.

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?

The input schema describes each parameter individually with 100% coverage, but the description adds crucial relational context: it explains that moveToFolderId and removeFromFolderId work together to move a file out of an old folder, and it names the source of fileId (list_drive_files). This adds meaning beyond the schema's isolated property 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 opens with 'Update a Drive file' and immediately enumerates the three distinct operations: rename (name), move (moveToFolderId and removeFromFolderId), and trash/untrash (trash:true|false). It names specific parameters and explicitly contrasts with delete_drive_file for permanent deletion. This is a precise verb+resource definition that clearly differentiates from siblings.

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?

The description provides an explicit alternative: 'To delete permanently, use delete_drive_file.' It also directs the user to obtain fileId from list_drive_files, establishing a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool for creating files, but the title and operations make that obvious. Slightly shy of a 5 because it doesn't spell out scenarios like 'use save_to_drive for new files'.

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