update_drive_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important caveat that changing MIME type may require content upload, and it describes the return value. It doesn't detail all side effects (e.g., moving to trash or parent changes), but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Despite its length, the description is a well-organized docstring with a clear purpose line, a structured argument list, and a return value note. Every line serves a purpose for a tool with 12 parameters; there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and lack of annotations, this description is comprehensive. It covers all parameters with semantic explanations, includes a return value description, and a caveat about MIME type changes. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly documents every parameter, including formats like 'Comma-separated folder IDs' for add_parents/remove_parents and the note that changing MIME type may require content upload. This adds substantial semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states 'Updates metadata and properties of a Google Drive file,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_drive_permission, which handles permissions separately.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided, the description's focus on 'metadata and properties' implies it is for file metadata updates rather than permissions or sharing, which are covered by sibling tools. The parameter list further clarifies its scope.

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