upload-drive-file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write touching external local state. The description adds the useful prerequisite that the local file must exist and that a file ID comes back, but says nothing about overwrite behavior for name collisions, size limits, or required auth scopes.

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 purpose sentence, then a required-parameters list, an example, a return value, and a caveat — well structured and easy to scan. Mildly redundant with the schema, but nothing is wasted enough to hurt.

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, stating 'Returns: File ID of the uploaded file' is genuinely valuable, and the local-file prerequisite covers the main failure mode. What is missing is collision/overwrite behavior and any mention of the destination folder needing to exist, which would matter for an open-world write tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them (driveId, parentId, filePath). The worked example does slightly help by showing the concrete format of the values, but it adds no constraint beyond the schema's 'Absolute path' wording.

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+resource (upload a file) plus the exact target system scope (a Dooray drive folder). This clearly separates it from upload-wiki-file, upload-wiki-page-file, and upload-attachment, which target different destinations in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied by the destination (drive folder) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the sibling upload/add-attachment tools, nor any prerequisite about permissions or whether the parent folder must already exist. The only real guidance offered is the note that the file must exist at the given path.

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