google_drive_update_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this overwrites or appends content, what permissions are required, whether version history is created, what happens if the file is shared or in a shared drive, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear purpose and good schema documentation, and the information is front-loaded with the core action immediately apparent.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during the update (overwrite vs append), what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what the response contains, or how errors are handled. Given the complexity of file updates and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more operational context.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'content' and 'existing file' which align with the schema parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('content of an existing file in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'google_drive_create_file' by specifying 'existing file', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update operations like 'google_drive_share_file' which also modifies files.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing edit permissions), when to use 'google_drive_create_file' for new files instead, or how this differs from 'google_drive_share_file' which also updates file properties. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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