update-drive-file

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit for specifying what is destroyed (existing file content replaced by a new version) and the local-path precondition. It also states the return shape (file ID and new version number). It stops short of covering version-history retention or conflict 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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first line, then organized into Required/Example/Returns/Note sections. Slight redundancy in re-listing parameters already documented in the schema, but nothing is padded or wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return value, and it covers the formatting of filePath via the example plus the existence precondition. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens on version conflicts or whether prior versions remain accessible.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters; the description's parameter list largely restates it. The worked example with a realistic absolute filePath adds modest value beyond the schema's one-line field 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Upload a new version of an existing file in a Dooray drive") and the word "existing" implicitly separates it from upload-drive-file. It never names that sibling, though, so an agent must infer the boundary between creating a new file and versioning an existing one.

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 Note establishes a precondition ("The file must exist at the specified path") and says the content is replaced, which implies when to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to upload-drive-file for new files, so the routing to alternatives is only implied.

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