drive_upload_file

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the return value details (id, name, mimeType, webViewLink), implying it creates a new file. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like creating duplicates, permission requirements, or auth behavior.

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 extremely concise: one core sentence plus a short Returns section. It front-loads the primary purpose and provides essential return information without redundancy or filler.

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 an upload tool, the description covers the action and the return payload, while the schema covers parameter details and annotations cover safety characteristics. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could briefly mention that this creates a new Drive file rather than overwriting an existing one.

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 description itself does not explain any parameters, but the input schema provides clear descriptions for local_path, name, mime_type, and parent_folder_id. The schema carries the parameter-semantics burden, so the description does not need to repeat it; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Upload a local file to Google Drive.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and is distinguishable from siblings like drive_download_file or drive_trash_file, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_create_folder or drive_download_file. The intended use is implied by the name and first sentence, but there are no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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