Upload file

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

The description discloses substantial behavioral details beyond the annotations: the pre-signed URL flow, automatic multi-part upload for files over 8 MiB, and the RBAC authorization mechanism with an explicit note that denial is a scope issue, not a tool failure. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false confirms write operation).

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core action, followed by necessary process details (pre-signed URLs, size threshold, RBAC). Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. It is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

The description covers the upload process, size handling, and authorization failure behavior, which is solid for a tool with no output schema. However, it does not mention what the tool returns on success (e.g., object URL or metadata) or what happens on overwriting an existing file. This is a minor gap given the complexity.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, mostly restating that bucketName is required (which the schema already states). It does not clarify new parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Upload a local file to a folder in a drive.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinct purpose is obvious versus sibling tools like download_file or search_files. The scope (drive/folder) and the requirement for bucketName are also mentioned.

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 gives clear context: it requires a drive (bucketName), reads from local machine, and uses pre-signed URLs. It explains the process but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use download_file instead). However, the context is sufficient to infer appropriate use.

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