Upload a local file into an iCloud Drive folder, setting destination folder and name. Set overwrite to true to replace an existing file with the same name.
Upload a local file into a Drive folder. Existing names fail unless overwrite is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| local_file | Yes | ||
| dest_folder | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does volunteer one meaningful behavior — name-collision failure and the overwrite escape hatch — which is genuinely useful. It omits auth requirements, whether the destination folder must pre-exist, and any mutation/reversibility 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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the failure condition. Every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the collision rule is a good addition. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves the destination and naming semantics too thin to call complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only explains the interplay of 'overwrite' with the 'name' collision case. It says nothing about what 'name' defaults to (presumably the local filename), what an empty 'dest_folder' means (root?), or the expected local_file format.
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 local file into a Drive folder') that clearly separates it from siblings like icloud_download, icloud_read_file, and icloud_write_file. The only wobble is the ecosystem mismatch between the tool name (icloud_*) and the description's 'Drive folder' wording, but the operation itself is unambiguous.
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 conditional 'Existing names fail unless overwrite is true' gives a real precondition for success, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it never contrasts this tool with alternatives such as icloud_write_file or icloud_mkdir, nor states when an agent should upload versus write directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.